From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 2 00:02:28 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:02:28 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Blogpost: So-what-do-we-do-now-living-in-a-post-snowden-world Message-ID: <01e001cf0777$d91cf510$8b56df30$@gmail.com> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/so-what-do-we-do-now-living-in-a-po st-snowden-world/ http://tinyurl.com/pvghcey M From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 6 02:55:50 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:55:50 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <56AE028F1BF14AB487B14DB21758C1A2@Toshiba> Just flagging this for any additional comments. To date I think we have some sensible suggestions as to how this might be handled, but additional inputs are very welcome. There seems to be strong support for the concept that groups involved in a small co ordination group should have substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. This might be contentious but all comments are welcome. Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 4:05 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move on on this particular issue. I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I think, but certainly well less than 20. So how do we choose? Criteria discussed so far include: 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others to make up for any omissions here. An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along with other suggestions should be discussed. Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of permanent and rotating members. So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and their cases to be involved. Ian Peter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 18:53:43 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:53:43 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Revised Academic sector appointments to the 1net steering committee In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25A5D03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25A5D03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton L Mueller Date: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:26 AM Subject: [discuss] Revised Academic sector appointments to the 1net steering committee To: "discuss at 1net.org" Dear Adiel: Here is the final list of recommendations from Giganet for the academic sector slots on the 1net coordinating committee Angela Daly (Australia) angela.daly at EUI.EU Ramesh Subramanian (India/USA) ramesh.subramanian at quinnipiac.edu Stefania Milan (Italy, NL) Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu William Drake (USA, CH) William.drake at uzh.ch Boubakar Barry (Ghana) Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net Milton Mueller Chair, GigaNet Steering Committee Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 21:46:39 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 02:46:39 +0000 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <20140108235901.5B21421365F@smtp2.arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> <20140108235901.5B21421365F@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <0125EEF3-8D7F-48A1-8D12-54DF6CC78BF7@arin.net> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote: > > This is important because if the "Lynn and 11 CEOs" meetings were not for you MSist governance, what you call MS globalization is actually a more stringent coalition that formalize in three steps: > > 1. august 29, 2012. OpenStand statement about the Normative coalition paradigm. > 2. october 7, 2013 Montevideo statement about the Cooperation coalition.pardigm. > ... You are conflating what are otherwise distinct events - for example, ARIN is not a signatory to OpenStand; it is orthogonal (not a basis or precondition) of the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Jan 8 22:01:56 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:31:56 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a member of the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the participation in person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on 10 Jan. Joana and Laura are the liaisons who had indicated they could make it in person. Will let you know as soon as there is a response. Best, Anja On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. > > JC > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : > > Hi Jean- Christophe, > > One correction to your excellent summary > > *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet > Steering Committee (BI SC)* > > The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering Committee – a > different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja > Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon ) > > The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up about 2 days > ago with the reps chosen by various constituencies but as the technical > community reps have not been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a > longer term brief than the Brazil meeting. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM > *To:* Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br > *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil > Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; > igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel > > Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons > for the mess (not always but...). > > A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand > it now, its title might be: > *ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG* > > *So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my > information to the listings)* > > When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the > purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are > available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious > issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, > and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release > dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In > the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The > last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. > In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. > > This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil > lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level > of concern? > > From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. > > *Who are the Organizers?* > Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see > Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... > > *Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet > Conference?* > One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 > additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? > > *Who are the Representatives of the Organizers?* > Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "*Brazilian > Internet Steering Committee*". This committee is not per say Brazilian as > it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be > a *US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee*, or an *ICANN and BRAZIL > Internet Steering Committee*. > > For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is > the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the > meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It > seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND > the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see > below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". > > *Who are the Representatives for all IG > participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the > multistakeholder story)?* > After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC > (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a > "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, > too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a > multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when > this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, > no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) > is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the > current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it > was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to > endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. > Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation > would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder > conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. > > *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers > will be able to share a feeling of participation. > > *Who are the other governments participating?* > No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low > 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as > most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through > the I*. > > *Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)?* > - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. > - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br > - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the > umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). > - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America > Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana > and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) > - ICANN representatives? > - Others? > ... > (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI > SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting > website) > > *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet > Steering Committee (BI SC)* > - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering > committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, > Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel > but we haven't seen his answer yet. > - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in > the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette > Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already > in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal > feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed > something here) > - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society > network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) > * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member > at the BI SC. > > *Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare > the event under the BI SC overview?* > This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite > clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement > with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). > The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection > committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected > will be sent to the BI SC for approval. > For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL > and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. > We don not know about other names. > > > *Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting?* > LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering > committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments > representatives are expected. > The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the > meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for > the event. > Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include > other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting > Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 > civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 > meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) > > Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill > ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all > circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views > ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants > * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the > mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not > too demanding. > > The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 > committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > individual civil society organisation(s) > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report > back as the process progresses > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of > civil society perspectives on these issues > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of > information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute > to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. > > Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time > on this. > > Thanks in advance > JC > > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Dear folks, > > > Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks > in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations > with CGI. > > > Carolina > > > Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The > point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering > all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover > (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be > such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting > there if not already there. > > > > Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. > > Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss > list: > > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > > > I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps > can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the > LOC. > > > - a. > > > > > Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have > steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of > committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering > committee members: > > Rafik Dammak > Anriette Esterhuysen > Anja Kovacs > Vladimir Radunovik > Joana Varon > > Marilia Maciel as back-up. > > Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But > there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. > And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short > notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. > Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? > > We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be > in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, > let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. > > Adam > > > > Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to > us? I request that list members give their response to this. > > > That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent > civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this > arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* > what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to > the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to > be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite > inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly > delayed even after this decision.) > > > Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep > us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be > invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not > share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case > the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep > CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened > since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. > Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a > member of LOG. But what about the three of you? > > > When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been > officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with > CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to > speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked > for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to > any of our requests.... > > > I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking > accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you > all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this > somewhere, in which case please do share it. > > > Thanks, parminder > > > > > So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email > if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan > > > -- > > Carol (in my personal capacity) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as 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: From pouzin at enst.fr Wed Jan 8 10:07:14 2014 From: pouzin at enst.fr (Louis Pouzin) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:07:14 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Message-ID: Superb, and true. Louis - - - On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Indeed, indeed, Parminder! > > > The 1net idea was brought to a I-stars meeting after the NSA scandal and > the 'trust' crisis/issue over the current asymmetric domination. 1net is an > ICANN idea and since then has been pushed by ICANN. It is amusing to note > that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings > has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! > The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures > the I-stars. "We didn't want to attract attention!! apologized the 11 CEOs > part of the I-stars, all them putting their signature at the bottom line of > the Montevideo statement ( in reaction to the crisis!). They survived WCIT > but not Snowden. > > Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO in 2013, admitted in a recorded meeting during > last ICANN 48 that she and other I-stars CEOs were first reluctant to the > 1net idea. Would 1net be a competitor to ISOC and its chapters if you only > think of ISOC's view of 1net? Other reasons were discussed. > > It is crystal clear to any political advisor with some experience that > 1net is a political extravaganza set to bring some sort of legitimacy to > ICANN and its plan to bake an international dressing and menu, in order to > keep as much as possible the asymmetry acceptable. It is also a bright move > to try to bring back as many civil society voices under a I-stars > overview/control. But some elements of the international civil society are > not governable from the US, (when they exist and wherever they are > located). 1net has also a dilution effect over the IGF, which is still a UN > 'thing'. 1net would take away from the IGF some of its relevance - even > though one can admit that the IGF was stalling. The bestbit, the 1net, the > High Level Panel by the ICANN... all of that converge to take the IGF down > to a not-able venue - We the French have made a word with the not-able, *les > notables*, the ones having the impression that they are the important > guys around. No one better than a *notable* can keep a status quo safe. > *Notables* are usually conservatives (of their status and advantages) by > nature. A little bit like the I-stars and their *aficionados*. > > ISOC could have been the natural 1net but is too much of a US entity, even > though it has offices around the world. The 1net idea is to shift civil > society and other Internet actors under an ICANN umbrella, an umbrella > being revamped as some sort of International organization (IO). Even though > it would be a fake IO, this new ICANN would be an embarrassment to any > initiative coming from or endorsed by a multilateral, or international law > related, oriented body. > > The I-stars are defending themselves from trying to lower the IGF > capacity. They have recently stated that, indeed, IGF deserves more funds, > and that the I-stars should think about giving to the IGF. This UN-WSIS > venue is today functioning with a miserable budget, even in comparison to > the ICANN communication budget, or the ISOC large revenues thank to PIR and > its selling of domains with .net, .org.... With such a poor financial > condition, the IGF has to turn to sometime evil government willing to show > some good face on the occasion by hosting the IGF meeting. Azerbaijan and > others have been financially correct and grata. After all, isn't it fair to > associate the UN with rogue states looking for friends. And make sure that > everyone confuses the UN with them. > > Nothing could be more effective than providing notables with some more $ > as they enjoy could table, and days of peace in remote location whether in > California, Bali or Argentina to meet, discuss and blunder. We all remember > that a few notables agreed to be paid for their personal views over IG when > attending the London High level panel meeting set by the ICANN few weeks > ago. What was the budget on this one? 50 guests... Maybe the IGF would be > happy to get this money to investigate more about the financial practice > over inter-connected networks and data carriers, providers and miners. Or > launch an honest survey of ideas to improve IG practice. > > So, will the ICANN-1net plan work out? Will it be said: "*Tout va bien > madame la marquise*"? > > It is not hard to imagine that this will bring legitimate reactions from > many 'stakeholders'. Outside of 1net. Outside of ICANN et al. > > Brazil might already have lost its 'time'. Brazil and others. > > Enough will soon be enough > > JC > > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 13:26, parminder a écrit : > > > On Wednesday 08 January 2014 05:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The meeting was >> between LOG and ICANN. >> >> Hmm....i think that may need to be reworded Louis as i don't think > 1NET=ICANN but my understanding is that 1NET=Various Stakeholders > (including ICANN). So i expect the meeting was between LOG and 1NET > > > I remember John Curran, who was at the Monte Video meeting where 1Net idea > arose, saying quite recently on this list something to the effect that 1Net > is yet just an e- discussion space, and it can become what its steering > committee (which hasnt met yet) may want it to become... > > I havent seen simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and co-shape > global meetings. Have you? Does it not appear strange. And for getting such > an invitation to come into the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space, one > has to really push hard, and have a lot of power. (I know also because some > well established civil society groups tried - together - to enter this > 'hosting space' and got no response.).. These are power games... 1Net > itself is hardly in a position to do the pushing... So whoever has the > power and is using it to come to the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space > is 1Net at the moment. Follows logically, whether we like it or not. > > parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 00:15:10 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:15:10 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Bad Behaviour Message-ID: <059a01cf0cf9$c7b01730$57104590$@gmail.com> All of this cluck, cluck, clucking about "bad behavior" by some folks whose truly atrocious behavior effectively shut down the IGC list and may have destroyed it forever is a source of some shall we say, "irony... I was at the famous Bali meeting and I thought that Parminder's behaviour was at a couple of points inappropriate--provoked certainly, but inappropriate; perhaps reflecting certain cultural misunderstandings or whatever, but yes, inappropriate and I told him so... Whether it warrants this kind of public vilification and what appears to be a desire for permanent exile (and the, dare I say, quite evidently political motivations that are prompting this .... I leave to various people's judgement.. In normal circumstances I would suggest that one party offers an apology, the other party accepts, they kiss and make up (whoops perhaps not so appropriate in this circumstance... and we all go on our way... But let's talk about some really "bad behavior" and moreover behavior that has serious consequences much beyond a couple of momentary lapses... We have a self-selected group, purportedly representing "Civil Society" (the Best bits Coordinating Committee); being self-appointed to an, in turn, self-selected group which purports to also represent Civil Society but in some vaguer larger sense (the Civil Society Coordinating Committee-CS:CC); and then further self-selecting themselves or their designates to represent "civil society" on the Coordinating Group of further vague and extremely shadowy and so far with no provenance or transparency -- the Inet group. And then to pile on top of this we have authorities in Brazil (again extremely vague as to who exactly is involved) designating this shadowy Inet group to be the sole interface for all of the non-governmental sectors to be involved in what has been purported to be a Summit to discuss global Internet Policies and Principles... And further we have this CS: CC going through an internal process among its self-appointed poobahs of horse-trading and other processes without apparent legitimacy or accountability and transparency (only by happy accident) to identify nominees for some elements of this self-same "Summit/err... meeting... (I may have missed an illegitimacy or unaccountability there somewhere but you get my drift... Now, the community of which I am a part has been looking to have a role in these discussions but what I see is a wall of illegitimacies and exclusionary behaviours which at their base and up and down the line are quite evidently politically motivated i.e. meant to close off debate; to limit issues and options; to exclude divergent voices; to ensure the ultimate adoption of a now-(post-Snowden) discredited and illegitimate, status quo consensus concerning the principle, policies and practices of global Internet Governance... To say that I'm disappointed is hardly sufficient... To say that all this is starting to look (err... smell) like the World Economic Forum and it's pay for play approach to Global Governance is I think hardly hyperbole. "So what does a po' boy do, but play in a... whoops wrong song, but right melody... Maybe we'll just have to call our own meeting -- call it the World Internet Forum -- and see who might show up to have a real discussion on the real issues concerning the Internet in current society and towards an Internet for the Common Good... Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 11:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Daniel Pimienta Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination of Parminder On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Daniel Pimienta < pimienta at funredes.org> wrote: > This is getting quite personal now... Dont you think it is too much so? > From Deirdre's report I get that neither Suresh nor Mc Tim were > present in that event, so why are they reporting about it? Speaking for myself, I am not "reporting" merely reminding folk that it is an unresolved issue for the IGC. > > When I read: > >> He was then physically aggressive/threatening towards me (no contact, >> but i felt physically threatened). > > I must say that I totally trust this testimony: what people feels is > an objective part of their own realm although it could be seen > subjective from the outside. > > However. > > Just a highly probable hypothesis to try to put some calming to this > personal situation. > Cultures does matters. Difference of cultures makes a lot of ...difference. Does your hypothesis explain why folks from other parts of the world were so uncomfortable they also left? > > I spent 2 years in assignment in the US back in 1984 (in the deep > South), coming from my mediterranean culture. > Every time I was getting anger (and in my culture we do not repress > this state of mind, we just express our anger) I realized that some > people around me felt physically threaten (in spite the fact I have > never rised the hand to anybody and I am totally uncapable of any > physical agression). It really impressed me a lot and obliged me, > since i was living there, to try to adapt and change somehow behavior. > I am not familiar with Indian culture but I wonder if we are not > facing the same type of situation and my guess is that it is highly probable. > > I do recommand the reading of US citizen author Edward T. Hall's "The > hidden dimension" who brightly explained how cultural chocks create > strange situatrons... and to cool down. > > Conclusive question : are we supposed, on the top of being fluent in > English, to embrace US culture in order to be allowed to participate > in an IGF event? > no, you just have to have a sense of decency. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 9 02:42:31 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 18:42:31 +1100 Subject: APOLOGY Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration In-Reply-To: References: <5E45CAA30C144DDF92DDB0917E9D49BE@Toshiba><44A44A92403D4283BC1D375CB051CDA2@Toshiba><7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B9F500449@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> Message-ID: <01D54067F85B44C088EE45674194C004@Toshiba> Carolina, please accept my personal apologies for this as the wording was entirely inappropriate. I was trying to provoke a discussion on ensuring that we were encompassing all viewpoints and including strong advocacy, but in the process made suggestions as to your personal involvement in issues which were inaccurate. I can only tell you, if it helps, that my inaccuracies (of which there were several on re-reading, and other apologies are due as well including Joana and Marilia) were bound to be picked up by others in the group and challenged, and nothing in my personal comments should be taken as representative of any organisation or group involved. I own my own words. Any suggestion by me, which can be inferred by my poorly chosen words, that only one or two of the candidates under consideration are capable of presenting third world issues and advocating on their behalf, is entirely inappropriate and for this I apologise. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:31 AM To: Burcu Kilic Cc: Ian Peter ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration (Apart of the personal side, and as I mentioned to Parminder, I do not take things personal - so that was an exception Ian, because it was personal :-) ) What disturbs me the most is that this email shows that there are groups withing groups. And this groups do not seem to be working groups, but groups that are ok with "ruptures at any point" (and I prefer to keep to myself what this may mean). And this worries me incredibly. It creates lots of trouble regarding the process we all agreed to in a certain moment and it also exposes all of us as CS. I am part of many other movements (open government, open data for science, free culture, open education, open access for publications, etc) and the cooperation and trust is much more present, which makes all the work, our strategies and positions move better. Plus, we are probably happier and more positive. I feel that if we do not have a true commitment with the group and also if we are not willing to open spaces for new comers, our movement may have a very dark end. I have been witnessing over the list - which actually make me sad, and I am sure overburdens lots of people here - the personal attacks, and the difficult we seem to have in "letting go" or "in trusting". I worked with cooperation theory, and I think if we were all part of a prisoners' dilemma game, we would all be dead by now due to our long long prison sentences. ;-) I preferred to be quiet when the attacks start, but again, I think it is just sad and a distraction from the real work. I have actually been thinking of ways to deal with that...such as having a working wiki where the real content driven work can happen and we list the content and strategy topics being discussed (which is also a better way to document work and find consensus) while folks keep debating interesting things on the list (or other issues...). The only other similar community I have known (and also participated in) is the Wikipedia. You have to have a real rough skin over there...hehehe. But they do get things done by using a knowledge management platform - a wiki. Anyway....I will take care of other work now, of my beautiful 3 year-old and have a glass of wine (which I humbly recommend to all), hoping we all find ways of trusting ourselves as a group and our processes better. Hugs to all, (yes, I am Brazilian and thus a big hugger) :-) Carol On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote: I second that. Carol is a strong advocate for developing countries, particularly Latin America. She is a proud Brazilian when it comes to work. From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:28 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: Ian Peter; Subject: Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration Btw... I am Brazilian and even leaving in US, I have TONS of work in developing world, my day by day work is focused on developing work, and just moved to the US because my husband is american. I do TONS of pro bono work on A2K, education, and ICTs in Brazil and other Latin American and South Asia countries. So it is NOT true I would not represent a developing country view. I am very honored by the votes and the trust. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 8, 2014, at 4:02 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: OMG... clearly not meant for this list and my sincere apologies to everyone. this was an awful mistake on my part... From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 7:43 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration Thanks everyone for prompt replies – below is a summary of your responses and the candidates still under consideration (although there is nothing to stop us bringing forward other names later on if we want to) HLC Carolina Rossini – 3.5 votes Jovan K – 3 votes Mark Rotenberg – 3 votes Joana Varon 2.5 votes Milton Mueller 2 votes Parminder Singh 2 votes Stephanie Perrin 1 vote Louis Pouzin 1 vote Marilia Maciel 1 vote SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES The brief here is “This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success” Bear in mind also that (my paraphrasing) the aim of the meeting seems to be to develop a set of high level principles for Internet Governance. We dont know yet whether we need 3 or 4 candidates, and probably wont know till Saturday. I think our aim between now and then should be to try and narrow down our field a bit and eliminate some names if possible. But in doing so: Carolina Rossini, Jovan K and Marc Rotenberg got the most support initially – not that we need to be bound by this. They are all impressive candidates. If Marc was in, we probably couldn’t include Milton – 2 US males would not be a good decision politically. Milton also probably fits as an academic – but as he is likely to be running the process to select academic candidates, he may not be able to include himself. Maybe we should seek clarification here? If Carolina was in, we probably wouldn’t include Joana or Marilia None of our first 3 would be considered to be a strong advocate for third world issues. If we thought it was important to include someone with this perspective, the choices would be Louis Pouzin or Parminder Singh. Parminder has indicated he would step down in favour of Louis Pouzin, and we may need to consider that Parminder is a member of the CI (Community Informatics) Nomcom also considering candidates for these very same positions (but with about 6 candidates and very little chance of their nominees being accepted) . That may be perceived as a conflict of interest, or we could ignore it. But some people have already suggested to me informally that Parminder has a conflict of interest here. Also to just note re Stephanie Perrin – if Marc Rotenberg was in we might consider we have privacy issues well covered; but if in our final slate we wanted to include Milton and leave Marc out to not have too many male US citizens Stephanie is an option to cover privacy. So lots of issues.Let’s discuss and see if we can narrow down a little while we await info as to whether we need 3 or 4 names. EC Marilia Maciel 3.5 votes Adam Peake 3 votes Joana Varon 2 votes Nadira Alaraj 1.5 votes Carolina Rossini 1.5 votes Stephanie Perrin 1 vote Norbert Bollow 1 vote Birgitta Jonsdottr .5 Parminder Singh .5 SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES The brief here is “This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives”. I think we need to determine HLC before finalising here. However Marilia and Adam have the strongest support at this stage. We again face the issue here of having a strong advocate for third world issues as a factor in deciding our final 2. Over to you all for comments, suggestions, and attempts to narrow this down further! Ian Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jan 9 06:26:10 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:26:10 +0000 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <20140109095359.6D53021365F@smtp2.arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> <20140108235901.5B21421365F@smtp2.arin.net> <0125EEF3-8D7F-48A1-8D12-54DF6CC78BF7@arin.net> <20140109095359.6D53021365F@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <457B412A-37C1-4721-9074-56F8A45900CC@arin.net> On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:52 AM, Michel Gauthier wrote: > At 03:46 09/01/2014, John Curran wrote: >> You are conflating what are otherwise distinct events - for example, ARIN is not >> a signatory to OpenStand; it is orthogonal (not a basis or precondition) of the >> Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > > John ..... > please let us know who is not endorsing the ISOC OpenStand among the "Lynn and the 11 CEOs"? ARIN did not endorse OpenStand, as ARIN does not conduct standards development and hence it was indeterminate regarding its application to our mission (although quite a few of the principles therein are supported by ARIN in our number resource policy development) > Please do not play with the words. There are five signatorees, then the endorsers and the supporters. No intention of playing with words; in fact, I'd appreciate some more precision in their use. ARIN is not a signatory, endorsor or supporter. > The ARIN's position in itself is of no particular importance. Interesting. You earlier implied that the Montevideo Statement and OpenStand were common steps in more stringent coalition formulation, but now indicate that the actual participants in each step are of no importance? I believe that I'll apply Occam's razor and go with the simpler theory that the participants in each initiative are doing so because they support that particular initiatives purpose and goals. > What is discussed here is the ISOC/ICANN strategy IRT the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77 position over the mutual control of the consolidation of the Internet technology. If there is a "ISOC/ICANN strategy ... over the mutual control of the consolidation of the Internet technology", it would make for informative reading - could you provide a pointer to this? I do know that both ICANN and ISOC support an Internet which is "built and governed in the public interest through unique mechanisms for global multi- stakeholder Internet cooperation", but that's quite a different goal and I don't need any reference for it - it's contained in the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > May I remind you that: > > - "ISOC is a non-profit organization founded in 1992 to provide *leadership* in Internet-related standards, education, and policy. It is dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of people throughout the world." You can remind me, but I'm quite aware of ISOC and its founding (Jon was member #1 of the Internet Society, my membership number was in the first hundred) > - WCIT has shown that the disagreement is between the notions of "leadership" (ISOC lead) and "MS-ship" (people centered). Is that what you believe WCIT has shown? I was there as well, and I would strongly disagree with not only your conclusion, but your framing on issue in that matter. If you had said "disagreement in notions of the relative merit of multilateral vs multistakeholder", then we might find common ground. > Sao Paulo should help clarfying it as a societal and global evolution of which the framework is to be defined. At this time the Sao Paulo outcomes are unknowable. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Jan 9 07:17:05 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:17:05 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: <52CDBBF1.8000107@eff.org> References: <52CDBBF1.8000107@eff.org> Message-ID: Thanks, people. Very encouraging. I can say that I can't wait for this committees to be formed. However is on it. Until now, it doesn't matter which former representativeness title we came up until now: CS liaison, 1net steering or whatever. Doors are closed. A bit frustrating... best joana On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > +1 > > On 01/08/2014 03:57 PM, Claudio Ruiz wrote: > > +1 > > > > On Jan 7, 2014, at 19:13, Carolina Rossini > > > > > wrote: > > > >> Dear Best Bits colleagues, > >> > >> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the > >> BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name > >> to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian > >> Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) > >> > >> Best to all, > >> > >> Carolina > >> > >> > >> > >> -- *Carolina Rossini* /Project Director, Latin America Resource > >> Center/ Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // > >> http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 > >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > >> skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >> . To unsubscribe or change > >> your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSzbvxAAoJEKzWRbtvalQySqMH/0jyKA4v0AWSOI+wS7rr8kbC > PDCsRp/jzxLK29Dlcpbx6gahRXGX/mDaA+GETgapqGiS/z5p8pQ89v2CLTr27PJX > gzpr+JliyCn+vvaPrCqS0z/4haioxd9j9DrNeM3F+ydUmwWsHqU1R4y6lqOCJojm > zEfxrI3ZELgRpUA0iwKcB6mUOP51eE3xKhV+G7clLJbTpgVctE38s3YTmuujh7jO > xcp+SzYuSaTZMzFUOp+WVWat0HpJPzrjxhDMOMNozppNpbpdqtwWNLwKtCAt3zE2 > flLEYhl0FHAYiynA1I0bUoAbXM2WAHSDTsC4n3+p/0ICXiOTKInR2roe1E8R5Hk= > =fae8 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Jan 9 07:48:56 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:48:56 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bdiscuss=5D_=5Bgovernance?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5D_Meeting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_between_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Sorry for not clarifing this yesterday, was having hard time to find ur msg again in the deep sea of emails in my inbox. All I can say is that, unfortunately, the Brazilian government has never taken into consideration the role of the liaisons. We were never invited to any single meeting that has been assembled with ICANN and interactions were always about us knocking on everyones doors to try to be informed. On the other hand, this nomination did serve as an incentive for the four/three of us to get together and work to assemble information through different channels and communicate whatever we could grasp to the international community. As Carolina has already explained in a previous email exchange with you. If it was not good enough, be assure, we have been doing our best. My email to Glaser mentioning to consider 1net steering was because he mentioned that the meeting was with "LOG and representatives from 1net". If that was the scope of the conversation, my natural reaction was to wonder: which 1net representative? If 1net had just passed through a process of electing representatives, why not referring to the elected ones? Basically, I was just working in the scope of possibilities that the LOG has given us with that email. The capacity of 1net to be a truly multistakeholder is yet to be seen. The steering have just been formed. So, of course, I'm not defending 1net's role, as we still don't know what it is. My intention was to pass this message to LOG: if 1net is meant to be legitimate, or is meant to be the conduit by any form, which is questionable, then, please, refer also to elected representatives of that network. Otherwise, we would be there just to legitimate something else, I role that I'm not comfortable with. That's basically it. Sorry if my msg was unclear to you by any chance (I know that, at least for the other liaisons, it would not be taken as any kind of action to exclude then. We cannot be excluded, if we were never included. We are working in the sense that if two ears or one mouth from the three of us in on the room, it is already a win.) Looking forward for the committees to be formed so we can stop jumping at people's windoms to collect information or drop suggestions that might not be taken into consideration. So we could focus on what pleasures me the most: research and building collective solutions. Hope it makes it clear to you. I know you are annoyed by many questions, but we are all annoyed and anxious too. Just the reactions are different, I've been trying to keep the positivity and patience, as the challenge LOG is facing is huge and I still trust they have the best of intentions. Maybe I'm naive. all the best joana On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:26 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear Glaser, > > Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the > steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the next planning > meetings? > > At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives in the > various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at least representatives > from international civil society should attend such meetings to report back > to it's constituencies. > > As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now trying to > create some legitimacy for this network by electing it's representatives > for the steering/coordination committee, I think that at least enabling > elected representatives for 1net to attend and report back should be a way > forward to start opening up the planing process while the Br committees are > not formed yet. > > > Joana > > Before you were sent to 1Net by some CS groups (for a task never too clear > to me) you were asked to be CS Liaison to the Brazilians to ensure that CS > has a direct relationship with them and our that relationship is not > mediated. I remember that at Bali your views were also quite strong on this > issue. Now you are slipping in an acceptance of the 1Net's mediating role > as fait accompli, and telling us that you are trying to contribute to > building legitimacy for 1Net.. > > I must admit, i remain thoroughly surprised by whatever is happening, and > in the closed manner that it is happening... > > Hope that we can hear some words of clarification from you and others... > > parminder > > IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this process. > > all the best > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > researcher > Center for Technology and Society > Fundação Getulio Vargas > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > >> >> *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the >> local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details >> related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's >> committees. >> *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since >> they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all >> stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. >> >> Thanks for your support. >> Local Organizing Group/CGI.br >> BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.orghttp://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 09:55:56 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:55:56 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] GNI report released Message-ID: FYI, http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/gni-report-finds-google-microsoft-and-yahoo-compliant-free-expression-and-privacy-principles Enjoy, McTim From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jan 6 14:55:46 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:55:46 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Jan 9 13:56:48 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:56:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for your kind edits and worrying about your fellow countrymen. It seems like many non Americans readers were not lost nor confuse on my Department of Business labeling. In courtesy to the American readers in the list, I will make the effort to use the accurate labels and present my sincere apologies for the inaccurate labels. Of course, I wonder if I would as kind in correcting you labeling inaccurately any Indian, French, German, Hungarian ministries label. But let's stay in our asymmetric world. Regarding the NSA employee, I didn't answer as someone did it for me in the list. But, unless such famous IG experts of your trempe do not follow the lasting and revolting NSA affair, I am pretty sure that everyone understood what I referred to. Not you? Were you confused? Again, very sorry to learn about that. Do you need pointers? Should I also apologize for asking you one question: why don't you react on other informations, thoughts, questions, issues, facts that me and others brought to the attention of the lists? Specially since you are a participant in the 1net , and de facto bringing your credibility to it. The discussion is currently rolling on this ghosty truc, and, as others, I tried to figure out if I was dreaming or not when observing what's going on with the ICANN/Brazil conference. Or do you feel so badly that the United States Department of Commerce, and other acronyms needed a Professor of your standing to come to their rescue. Considering the number of off-the list emails thanking me for my last posts here, may I admit some disappointment. I would rather hear more of you on your book The Global Politics of Internet Governance, and its last 18-page chapter 'Ideologies and Visions'. You proclaim that "Cyber-libertarinism is not dead." "For it was never really born." You describe it more as a prophetic vision. (Ahhh Prophets and Talibans!!) and you push a "denationalized liberalism" as the perfect concept for getting the invisible hand and the common good reunited in a dramatic marriage of complementarities (commons and property). Well, well, well. This is something that I hope the 1net and other venues will soon debate, if we first come to agreement on the list of what is commons and what is property. We should make sure that Google is in the room by then. The EU and Google, India and Google, France and Google have very opposite views on what is what between commons and property. So do I. I am sure once we have set these lists, our debate will come to an easy and unexpected conclusion. It would also be nice by the same token to look at revenues and budget. Comparing the USD 284 millions of ICANN's forecasted 2014 budget (vs 233 millions in 2013), and the tiny budget of IGF. Look at the money ICANN will spend to take the lead over the Internet governance debate thaks to the revenues of the new gTLD business (sorry Commerce). It already seems like the invisible hand has done its work, as 1net will receive at least 4 or 5 what IGF gets. For a non-existing entity if we understand John Curran correctly, this is quite an achievement. Very much a good "denationalized liberalism" example. No? Another interesting topic of discussion would be the neo-conservative view of a potential (and inevitable) balkanization of Internet. Do you have anything on that? But maybe these are less relevant issues compare to Department of Commerce proper labeling... Sorry for being ironic but the situation deserves a bit of humor. I am expecting more from someone like you - I am still reading your final chapter!! Every one should (no irony here). JC PS: About IETF, the best I can do is to direct you to its website http://www.ietf.org/ But maybe you were concerned about my "IETF board" (well, it might just be a shortcut to mention the area Directors, or ADs, members of the Internet Engineering Steering Group, under the oversight of IAB, etc, etc.....). __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 9 janv. 2014 à 16:19, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > Jean-Christophe: > You are confusing people by using inaccurate labels. > > There is no “Department of Trade” in the US, there is a Department of Commerce, and although translating “Commerce” into French may be the same general meaning as “Trade,” American readers will get confused if you switch the terms. > > Same accuracy problem with your reference to the IETF Board. I do not know what the IETF Board is, do you mean the IAB? Or the ISOC Board of Trustees? What is the name of the NSA employee you are referring to? > > > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:50 PM > To: Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > > ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board. > > > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:43, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit : > > > I’m confused. What “grouping” are you stating is under a “direct mandate” of the “US trade department”? > > Greg Shatan > > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:15 PM > To: John Curran > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser > Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > > John, > > My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. > > Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. > > JC > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 19:08, John Curran a écrit : > > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > ... > It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. > > Jean-Christophe - > > Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past have been > generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see fit, e.g. - > > From > 6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting > > Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-30 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments and the IANA RFP. > > From: > • NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Florida – Hosted by ARIN > – Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s > – Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IETF (I*) Executives > > etc. > > Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the various Internet organizations > have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together than via many one-on-one meetings. > Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in press releases) but information about > their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certainly in the public as noted above, > and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > > * * * > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. > * * * > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brett at accessnow.org Thu Jan 9 14:20:32 2014 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:20:32 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] GNI report released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please find the Access response to the GNI Report here and copied below https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/08/access-welcomes-the-first-round-of-gni-assessments Access welcomes today’s report by the Global Network Initiative on its assessments of the three founding GNI members: Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!. The Public Report on the Independent Assessment Processaddresses how the companies in question respond to government requests “implicating freedom of expression or privacy rights” and describes the assessment of these processes against the GNI Principles. According to the report, all three companies were found to be in compliance with the Principles, as per a case review by independent assessors. We recognize the GNI’s sector-leading efforts and note their progress in working to advance freedom of expression, privacy, and other human rights. Today’s report is another step forward for the founding companies, and towards realizing the promise of the GNI. However, we believe that significant information is still missing, and that improvements must be made before the next round of assessments. The assessments detailed in the report represent the culmination of the GNI’s three-phase process: The first is a self-reporting stage, while the second looks at policies and procedures. This process is intended as an innovative way for diverse stakeholders to monitor corporate efforts to respect the privacy and free expression rights of users. The Phase III assessments look at case studies of human rights risk scenarios involving government requests that the companies have received, and the implementation of the GNI Guiding Principles in those instances. The case studies are a window into some of the pressing human rights issues faced by companies on a regular basis. However, the fact that the case studies to be reviewed were proposed by the companies themselves, from a set of relevant instances known only by the companies, raises some questions about the rigor of the assessment process. Moreover, the report notes that the assessors -- KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Foley Hoag -- struggled to obtain all of the necessary information about the companies’ policies and practices. Externally, the assessors faced constraints such as legal limits on disclosure of national security related requests and user privacy considerations. Internally, the companies chose to withhold certain information by asserting attorney-client privileges and claims of protection of trade secrets (the full assessments are presented to the GNI Board, which is made up of representatives of other, competing companies). While the legal limits on what the companies can say about national security-related requests they receive are well documented, the absence of substantial discussion on this issue in this report is a particularly critical omission, even as the GNI and its member companies have been outspoken on the issue of mass surveillance . The GNI has made a commitment to reviewing its assessment process now that its three founding members have gone through a full cycle (and before new members begin the process). This review is an opportunity to institute a more robust process in the future. Specifically, we recommend: - The assessors need full and unfettered access to company data and personnel, to the extent legally permitted; - Assessor recommendations should be made public for each GNI member. The lack of detailed recommendations broken down by company makes it difficult for groups outside the GNI to hold the companies accountable; - Non-company members of GNI should be more fully involved in the assessment process. In particular, the assessors must give greater consideration to the case studies proposed by academics, investors, and civil society stakeholders. These stakeholders should also be more fully involved in the case study selection process; and - The companies must transparently and publicly communicate on their progress implementing the recommendations, based on a public timeline, with appropriate consequences for non-compliance. On the final point about transparency and public timelines: The reports’ recommendations include calls for greater human rights due diligence, more granular transparency reporting, and improving stakeholder and user engagement, and promise a six month timeline for doing so. This is a welcome step. However, unless the companies publicly report the actions they are taking to address these gaps, they can’t be effectively held accountable to the recommendations. It’s also not clear what sanctions, if any, the companies may face if they fail to deliver. Overall, we see this public report as an innovative advance toward a more transparent and accountable tech sector, and congratulate those who were involved. We look forward to working alongside the GNI and its member companies to further extend and defend the digital rights of users around the world. Access will soon release a deeper analysis of the report’s substantive recommendations to the companies. Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A *RightsCon Silicon Valley, March 3-5, 2014. Register interest now !* On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:55 AM, McTim wrote: > FYI, > http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/gni-report-finds-google-microsoft-and-yahoo-compliant-free-expression-and-privacy-principles > > Enjoy, > > McTim > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 16:33:49 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:33:49 -0500 Subject: APOLOGY Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration In-Reply-To: <01D54067F85B44C088EE45674194C004@Toshiba> References: <5E45CAA30C144DDF92DDB0917E9D49BE@Toshiba> <44A44A92403D4283BC1D375CB051CDA2@Toshiba> <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B9F500449@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> <01D54067F85B44C088EE45674194C004@Toshiba> Message-ID: Thank you. :-) On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Carolina, > > please accept my personal apologies for this as the wording was entirely > inappropriate. I was trying to provoke a discussion on ensuring that we > were encompassing all viewpoints and including strong advocacy, but in the > process made suggestions as to your personal involvement in issues which > were inaccurate. > > I can only tell you, if it helps, that my inaccuracies (of which there > were several on re-reading, and other apologies are due as well including > Joana and Marilia) were bound to be picked up by others in the group and > challenged, and nothing in my personal comments should be taken as > representative of any organisation or group involved. I own my own words. > > Any suggestion by me, which can be inferred by my poorly chosen words, > that only one or two of the candidates under consideration are capable of > presenting third world issues and advocating on their behalf, is entirely > inappropriate and for this I apologise. > > > Ian Peter > > > > *From:* Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:31 AM > *To:* Burcu Kilic > *Cc:* Ian Peter ; > mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration > > (Apart of the personal side, and as I mentioned to Parminder, I do not > take things personal - so that was an exception Ian, because it was > personal :-) ) > > What disturbs me the most is that this email shows that there are groups > withing groups. And this groups do not seem to be working groups, but > groups that are ok with "ruptures at any point" (and I prefer to keep to > myself what this may mean). And this worries me incredibly. It creates lots > of trouble regarding the process we all agreed to in a certain moment and > it also exposes all of us as CS. > > I am part of many other movements (open government, open data for science, > free culture, open education, open access for publications, etc) and the > cooperation and trust is much more present, which makes all the work, our > strategies and positions move better. Plus, we are probably happier and > more positive. > > I feel that if we do not have a true commitment with the group and also if > we are not willing to open spaces for new comers, our movement may have a > very dark end. I have been witnessing over the list - which actually make > me sad, and I am sure overburdens lots of people here - the personal > attacks, and the difficult we seem to have in "letting go" or "in > trusting". I worked with cooperation theory, and I think if we were all > part of a prisoners' dilemma game, we would all be dead by now due to our > long long prison sentences. ;-) > > I preferred to be quiet when the attacks start, but again, I think it is > just sad and a distraction from the real work. I have actually been > thinking of ways to deal with that...such as having a working wiki where > the real content driven work can happen and we list the content and > strategy topics being discussed (which is also a better way to document > work and find consensus) while folks keep debating interesting things on > the list (or other issues...). > > The only other similar community I have known (and also participated in) > is the Wikipedia. You have to have a real rough skin over there...hehehe. > But they do get things done by using a knowledge management platform - a > wiki. > > Anyway....I will take care of other work now, of my beautiful 3 year-old > and have a glass of wine (which I humbly recommend to all), hoping we all > find ways of trusting ourselves as a group and our processes better. > > Hugs to all, (yes, I am Brazilian and thus a big hugger) :-) > > Carol > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote: > >> I second that. Carol is a strong advocate for developing countries, >> particularly Latin America. >> >> She is a proud Brazilian when it comes to work. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:28 PM >> *To:* Ian Peter >> *Cc:* Ian Peter; >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration >> >> >> >> Btw... I am Brazilian and even leaving in US, I have TONS of work in >> developing world, my day by day work is focused on developing work, and >> just moved to the US because my husband is american. I do TONS of pro bono >> work on A2K, education, and ICTs in Brazil and other Latin American and >> South Asia countries. So it is NOT true I would not represent a developing >> country view. >> >> I am very honored by the votes and the trust. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 4:02 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: >> >> OMG... clearly not meant for this list and my sincere apologies to >> everyone. >> >> >> >> this was an awful mistake on my part... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Ian Peter >> >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 09, 2014 7:43 AM >> >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> *Subject:* [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration >> >> >> >> Thanks everyone for prompt replies – below is a summary of your responses >> and the candidates still under consideration (although there is nothing to >> stop us bringing forward other names later on if we want to) >> >> >> >> HLC >> >> >> >> Carolina Rossini – 3.5 votes >> >> Jovan K – 3 votes >> >> Mark Rotenberg – 3 votes >> >> Joana Varon 2.5 votes >> >> Milton Mueller 2 votes >> >> Parminder Singh 2 votes >> >> Stephanie Perrin 1 vote >> >> Louis Pouzin 1 vote >> >> Marilia Maciel 1 vote >> >> >> >> SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES >> >> >> >> The brief here is “This committee will set the high ­level political >> tone and objectives of the >> >> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >> stakeholders to >> >> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >> success” >> >> >> >> Bear in mind also that (my paraphrasing) the aim of the meeting seems to >> be to develop a set of high level principles for Internet Governance. >> >> >> >> We dont know yet whether we need 3 or 4 candidates, and probably wont >> know till Saturday. I think our aim between now and then should be to try >> and narrow down our field a bit and eliminate some names if possible. But >> in doing so: >> >> >> >> Carolina Rossini, Jovan K and Marc Rotenberg got the most support >> initially – not that we need to be bound by this. They are all impressive >> candidates. >> >> >> >> If Marc was in, we probably couldn’t include Milton – 2 US males would >> not be a good decision politically. Milton also probably fits as an >> academic – but as he is likely to be running the process to select academic >> candidates, he may not be able to include himself. Maybe we should seek >> clarification here? >> >> >> >> If Carolina was in, we probably wouldn’t include Joana or Marilia >> >> >> >> None of our first 3 would be considered to be a strong advocate for third >> world issues. If we thought it was important to include someone with this >> perspective, the choices would be Louis Pouzin or Parminder Singh. >> Parminder has indicated he would step down in favour of Louis Pouzin, and >> we may need to consider that Parminder is a member of the CI (Community >> Informatics) Nomcom also considering candidates for these very same >> positions (but with about 6 candidates and very little chance of their >> nominees being accepted) . That may be perceived as a conflict of interest, >> or we could ignore it. But some people have already suggested to me >> informally that Parminder has a conflict of interest here. >> >> >> >> Also to just note re Stephanie Perrin – if Marc Rotenberg was in we might >> consider we have privacy issues well covered; but if in our final slate we >> wanted to include Milton and leave Marc out to not have too many male US >> citizens Stephanie is an option to cover privacy. >> >> >> >> So lots of issues.Let’s discuss and see if we can narrow down a little >> while we await info as to whether we need 3 or 4 names. >> >> >> >> >> >> EC >> >> Marilia Maciel 3.5 votes >> >> Adam Peake 3 votes >> >> Joana Varon 2 votes >> >> Nadira Alaraj 1.5 votes >> >> Carolina Rossini 1.5 votes >> >> Stephanie Perrin 1 vote >> >> Norbert Bollow 1 vote >> >> Birgitta Jonsdottr .5 >> >> Parminder Singh .5 >> >> >> >> SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES >> >> >> >> The brief here is “This committee owns the full responsibility of >> organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, >> managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of >> proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and >> process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post >> conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives”. >> >> >> >> I think we need to determine HLC before finalising here. However Marilia >> and Adam have the strongest support at this stage. We again face the issue >> here of having a strong advocate for third world issues as a factor in >> deciding our final 2. >> >> >> >> Over to you all for comments, suggestions, and attempts to narrow this >> down further! >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 >> > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 9 17:18:46 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:18:46 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [] ATRT2 Final Report In-Reply-To: <52CF1D51.2050404@acm.org> References: <52CF1D51.2050404@acm.org> Message-ID: <52CF2046.40000@acm.org> FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [discuss] ATRT2 Final Report Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:06:09 -0500 From: Avri Doria To: discuss at 1net.org Hi, Every once in a while the question of ICANN's accountability is raised as a issue on this and other lists. The Affirmation of Commitments established a process for an Accountability and Transparency Review Team to be assembled every 3 years to do a review. I have written before of how I believe this is a good mechanism for multistakeholder governance and a model that could be built upon by other Ig organizations. Of course a lot depends on how the ICANN Board and Staff take up the recommendations in the Review. At this point, I am optimistic because they have both shown good cooperation during the process of doing the review. I was on this year's review team. Announcement: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09jan14-en.htm Public Comment: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-09jan14-en.htm ATRT2 Final Report: http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/final-recommendations-31dec13-en.pdf Translations into the 5 UN languages are currently being done and should be available early in February. I will send the URL's once they are published, but I expect they will be listed in the top URL. avri From Lea at gp-digital.org Thu Jan 9 17:21:30 2014 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:21:30 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation - input on mechanisms required Message-ID: Dear all, As you may know, the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC; http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx) is currently mapping mechanisms where enhanced cooperation is taking place, and assessing those mechanisms. The mapping is expected to form the basis of the Working Groups' recommendations. The first leg of the mapping exercise is being done remotely by a subgroup coordinated by Phil Rushton and Joy Liddicoat, called the Correspondence Group (which some on this list are a part of, including myself). Phil has contacted the Correspondence Group to ask for input in to the process (see below). The inputs are being organised according to a list of 24 broad areas of internet-related public policy, the list of areas is in the attachment. Although input has only been sought from the Correspondence Group members, I would be happy to consolidate any input from the broader civil society into one submission. If you want to contribute, please send me any examples you want included by January 24th. This should not stop anyone already a member of CG from submitting their own input directly, but rather making sure that a broad civil society view is taken into the next WGEC meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Lea ----- From: gec at LIST.UNICC.ORG [mailto:gec at LIST.UNICC.ORG] On Behalf Of Private Sector Phil Rushton Sent: 07 January 2014 20:58 To: CGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG Subject: CSTD WG on EC - input on mechanisms required Dear Colleague First many thanks for volunteering to assist in identifying where the mechanisms of enhanced co-operation exists, and second, apologies for the delay in getting the base text to you. The information that is being sought (and which is described below) should be provided to me by January 31st. This will allow for a second round of clarification, if required, prior to the information being submitted to the CSTD WG meeting in February. The attached document has had its 200+ policy issues grouped into 24 broad areas (listed in column B), and it is against these broad areas that your input is sought. The input that is being sought in these various broad areas is to: a. Use the identified broad areas of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in the attached spreadsheet that has been developed in the second meeting of the WGEC (and since updated). (NB) Additional issues may be added to the identified public policy issues if agreed by the WGEC. And (b) list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list (c) identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing the issues Please provide evidence or examples of where some or all stakeholders in their broadest sense (Government, Industry, Academia, Business and Civil Society) have engaged in working together on that issue. The detail that is being sought, where it is known, is as follows: * the name of the mechanism (in the widest sense this includes policy spaces or forums); * the stakeholders involved, * details of any discussions, or where such details can be read, * dates started, completed; * current status of mechanism discussion, etc. Regards Phil Rushton Standards and Numbering Policy Strategy BT Technology Service & Operations -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WGEC-Question4 Proposed Issues V1.0 (1).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 26955 bytes Desc: WGEC-Question4 Proposed Issues V1.0 (1).xlsx URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Jan 9 17:22:35 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:22:35 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much will ICANN spend to be seen in Davos under the umbrella of the cutting edge of MS governance? Nothing to worry when one checks the 2014 ICANN budget. It's all there). Was it necessary for ICANN and its internationalization dressing to go to bed with the most out-dated global room service for leaders (in Davos), the most expensive concierge of global fluff consultancy. The WEF is so multistakeholder that these doing-all-we-can-for-a-better-world people are accepting tons of $ from the Russian and the Chinese with no hesitation (remember the villains in the Internet power grab fiction, the enemies of the Holy and Unified Internet). I work a few miles away from the WEF (left bank is UN and NGOs, right bank is WEF, bankers and lawyers here in Geneva) and if the WEF is the cutting edge of MS governance, then, apart from me being the Pope, this model won't survive very long. This is a big joke. Me in Pope I mean. So maybe 1net dreams of convening some béni-oui-oui, paying them largely enough for them to endorse whatever thoughts will come out of that mascarade but I hope that all the honest brokers of the IG debate will resist the temptation of the $ and leave that empty MS body. Smoke over fluff over smoke... And today we have had an incredible testimony from Seun Ojedeji: ...Now this seems complicated, I had thought the 1Net committee referred to by Hartmut are the nominated 1Net steering/coordinating committee. Adiel's comment above is looking like there are other group of people called 1Net committee aside those nominated. It will be interesting to know that the role of all the nominated 1Net committee members in Brazil event is just to observe (considering amount of data burnt towards committee nomination :) ) And now you want everyone to feel cool relax, and enjoying the ride? Sure, let's go to Vegas, if you do not like Davos. Who's paying for my ticket? Again, this is all very gross. JC about bashing PS 1 Do you say that the NSA affair is no big deal. Who was behind it? The EU? India? Bantu? Nepal? It is very sad that once again the US is taken by the patrol. Again, and again. And you feel like this is not hurting everyone, including the US? And you are surprised of the reactions coming with that affair. Even the I* understood that the situation had deteriorated to an un seen level of distrust. So, they had that to launch their Montevideo reaction and game. With grosse ficelle again. I don't know which consulting firm had this idea of the 1net, but I think it is not worth the money ICANN spent on it. PS 2 The 'I must be on some committee...' Think about the asymmetric side of the story. Think about the resistance to change that we all see. Think about the way Cerf and the old guard launched an anti-UN campaign. Incredible!! Remember that the League of Nations was originated by a US president, never signed by his own congress; remember that for the second attempt, the UN was launched in San Francisco in 1945. What a sad thing to see that the asymmetric role of the US is largely emerging from that fascinating city. Why don't you accept the fact that the failure of the IGF is due largely to a bunch of people (pro-status quo priests) selling to the world their story of an ungovernable space, and all that crap... You have no eyes? And you do not want to see? Le 9 janv. 2014 à 21:03, David Conrad a écrit : > My impression is that if Rod Beckstrom is portrayed as playing a significant role in the development of 1net, then what you are writing could be categorized under "story, fictional" (no criticism of Rod intended, just that he's been out of the picture for some time now). > > I'm sorry, but can someone remind me of the purpose of this list? It seems to have devolved into either a "bash everything even indirectly related to the US because the NSA spies" or a "I must be on some committee because I'm important" noise generator. While some of the conspiracy theories can be entertaining (in the Poe's Law sense) I'm having trouble seeing any particular value in either of these themes. Aren't there more important issues to discuss? > > Regards, > -drc > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> You take out of my thoughts. Beckstrom is a great character in our story. Did you listen to him speaking at the preparatory meeting of the upcoming WEF this January in Davos? 100% fat. He is part of my next paper. A great shot. >> >> Le 9 janv. 2014 à 16:51, JFC Morfin a écrit : >> >>> At 16:04 09/01/2014, Jorge Amodio wrote: >>>> So somebody is calling the shots right ? >>> >>> Jorge, >>> >>> may be are you forgetting who came from where through the National Cyber Security Center to direct ICANN during the three years of the OpenStand boostrap, preparation and signature period (http://www.beckstrom.com). "Leaderless organizations are changing the world": in his book he explained he has experience and expertise in leading and fighting them. We most probably see this expertise and this experience partly in action. It would be surprising he had no say in the choice of his successor. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Beckstrom explains why he disliked the NSA. Cybersurveillance is fun, but the need is for serious cyberdefense for all, i.e. the Sao Paulo's focus by a President who was no upset by the surveillance but by the penetration. "People are creating new ways to break into your network every day". This is what MUST to be stopped. Amaterism is over. Paid or volunteers *professionnals* must take over. >>> >>> jfc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 17:44:04 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 20:44:04 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation - input on mechanisms required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Lea, Thank you for the information and for seeking input from this broader group. I have not followed the work of the WGEC as closely as I would like to, therefore I have a doubt regarding the framing of this consultation you brought to our attention. The attached e-mail asks to identify "mechanisms" (plural, and I read this is fora) where enhanced cooperation exists. Therefore, it seems to depart from the assumption that EC is already being implemented in many different spaces. As far as I remember from the CSTD discussions on EC where I participated, wether EC was already in place or not was one of the key issues on this debate. If EC means something like "discussions taking place in a multistakeholder fashion", whenever that happened we could say that there was EC. On the other hand, if EC means something specific, then probably it is something yet to be created. Given how the question was framed, I would like to know if the WG has already taken a stance on this issue, if they have agreed on a working definition of EC and what was it. Sorry if this has already been discussed at some point. Thanks! Marília On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > As you may know, the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC; > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx) is currently mapping > mechanisms where enhanced cooperation is taking place, and assessing those > mechanisms. The mapping is expected to form the basis of the Working > Groups' recommendations. > > The first leg of the mapping exercise is being done remotely by a subgroup > coordinated by Phil Rushton and Joy Liddicoat, called the Correspondence > Group (which some on this list are a part of, including myself). Phil has > contacted the Correspondence Group to ask for input in to the process (see > below). The inputs are being organised according to a list of 24 broad > areas of internet-related public policy, the list of areas is in the > attachment. > > Although input has only been sought from the Correspondence Group members, > I would be happy to consolidate any input from the broader civil society > into one submission. If you want to contribute, please send me any examples > you want included by January 24th. > > This should not stop anyone already a member of CG from submitting their > own input directly, but rather making sure that a broad civil society view > is taken into the next WGEC meeting. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > Best, > Lea > > ----- > > From: gec at LIST.UNICC.ORG [mailto: > gec at LIST.UNICC.ORG] On Behalf Of Private Sector Phil Rushton > Sent: 07 January 2014 20:58 > > To: CGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG > Subject: CSTD WG on EC - input on mechanisms required > > Dear Colleague > > First many thanks for volunteering to assist in identifying where the > mechanisms of enhanced co-operation exists, and second, apologies for the > delay in getting the base text to you. The information that is being > sought (and which is described below) should be provided to me by January > 31st. This will allow for a second round of clarification, if required, > prior to the information being submitted to the CSTD WG meeting in February. > > The attached document has had its 200+ policy issues grouped into 24 broad > areas (listed in column B), and it is against these broad areas that your > input is sought. The input that is being sought in these various broad > areas is to: > a. Use the identified broad areas of international public policy > issues pertaining to the Internet in the attached spreadsheet that has been > developed in the second meeting of the WGEC (and since updated). (NB) > Additional issues may be added to the identified public policy issues if > agreed by the WGEC. > And > (b) list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the > issues in the list > (c) identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing > the issues > > Please provide evidence or examples of where some or all stakeholders in > their broadest sense (Government, Industry, Academia, Business and Civil > Society) have engaged in working together on that issue. > > The detail that is being sought, where it is known, is as follows: > > * the name of the mechanism (in the widest sense this includes policy > spaces or forums); > * the stakeholders involved, > * details of any discussions, or where such details can be read, > * dates started, completed; > * current status of mechanism discussion, etc. > > > Regards > Phil Rushton > Standards and Numbering Policy Strategy > BT Technology Service & Operations > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Jan 9 18:17:39 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:17:39 -0800 Subject: ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Jean-Christophe - Samsung Electronics is very likely to have paid for his travel and participation, given his registration for the event and his being credited with speaking under such title. References: http://www.weforum.org/global-agenda-councils/rod-beckstrom - "Ensuring the future of the Internet and its open environment is another global priority that requires a cooperative approach, Rod A. Beckstrom, Chief Security Adviser at Samsung Electronics, USA, told participants." Do not let the lack of this factual basis distract you from your otherwise amusing theories connecting ICANN to yet another conspiracy. Thanks! /John Disclaimer - My views alone. On Jan 9, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! > > As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. > > A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. > > What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... > > Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much will ICANN spend to be seen in Davos under the umbrella of the cutting edge of MS governance? Nothing to worry when one checks the 2014 ICANN budget. It's all there). > > Was it necessary for ICANN and its internationalization dressing to go to bed with the most out-dated global room service for leaders (in Davos), the most expensive concierge of global fluff consultancy. The WEF is so multistakeholder that these doing-all-we-can-for-a-better-world people are accepting tons of $ from the Russian and the Chinese with no hesitation (remember the villains in the Internet power grab fiction, the enemies of the Holy and Unified Internet). I work a few miles away from the WEF (left bank is UN and NGOs, right bank is WEF, bankers and lawyers here in Geneva) and if the WEF is the cutting edge of MS governance, then, apart from me being the Pope, this model won't survive very long. This is a big joke. Me in Pope I mean. > ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Jan 9 18:58:07 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:58:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks John, Le 10 janv. 2014 à 00:17, John Curran a écrit : > Jean-Christophe - > > Samsung Electronics is very likely to have paid for his travel and participation, given > his registration for the event and his being credited with speaking under such title. I share your view on this. > > References: http://www.weforum.org/global-agenda-councils/rod-beckstrom Indeed there are some very good facts in that one! > > - > "Ensuring the future of the Internet and its open environment is another global priority that requires a cooperative approach, Rod A. Beckstrom, Chief Security Adviser at Samsung Electronics, USA, told participants." ICANN had announced that it would link to the WEF weeks before Beckstrom participated in Abu Dabhi. Could it be that the WEF (not Beckstrom) would take the risk to upset ICANN by giving the floor to Fadi's predecessor? The WEF is very precise and do not act without some solid reasons ($$). I'll get the facts about this. > > Do not let the lack of this factual basis distract you from your otherwise amusing > theories connecting ICANN to yet another conspiracy. I see no conspiracy. I see a very political situation, and I see political reasoning and logic, specially since Dubai and Snowden, in the same manner I do not understand Jon Postel exit as a gentle move, or accidental move but a highly political decision and will. And do no mistake me : I give credit to professionals like Fadi et al that they know what is a good strategy and a good communication plan. Could it be that the big challenge Fadi has over his shoulders be dealt on a daily basis, without a long term perspective? ICANN is playing its survival at the international level. And I have no reason to think that the State Department and a few other major players do not have a clear understanding of how Fadi wants to play the ball. That being said, all of that is directly related to what is (or is not) happening with the Brazilian/ICANN meeting. Night JC > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimer - My views alone. > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! >> >> As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. >> >> A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. >> >> What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... >> >> Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much will ICANN spend to be seen in Davos under the umbrella of the cutting edge of MS governance? Nothing to worry when one checks the 2014 ICANN budget. It's all there). > >> >> Was it necessary for ICANN and its internationalization dressing to go to bed with the most out-dated global room service for leaders (in Davos), the most expensive concierge of global fluff consultancy. The WEF is so multistakeholder that these doing-all-we-can-for-a-better-world people are accepting tons of $ from the Russian and the Chinese with no hesitation (remember the villains in the Internet power grab fiction, the enemies of the Holy and Unified Internet). I work a few miles away from the WEF (left bank is UN and NGOs, right bank is WEF, bankers and lawyers here in Geneva) and if the WEF is the cutting edge of MS governance, then, apart from me being the Pope, this model won't survive very long. This is a big joke. Me in Pope I mean. >> ... > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Jan 9 19:45:30 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 19:45:30 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March 3rd-5th, 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <75F7922F-063B-453D-86DB-7A0C0D8B39CF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks for the useful feedback. A quick update on Access' end: All of the session proposals we received (250+ overall) are going through a review process by the RightsCon programming committee. As mentioned before, the placeholder proposal Jeremy submitted may need to be fleshed out a bit more, but I can attempt to integrate the feedback from this thread if/when the programming committee requests more information. If anyone else is interested in contributing, please feel free to contact me on or off list. For those of you who have contributed ideas on this this thread, thank you, and I may reach out to you directly to follow up. Please let me know if you have any questions. Or you can contact Access' conference coordinator Rian Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org for more information on the process, or on RightsCon more generally. Kind regards, Deborah On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Completely agree Brett and I am looking forward to contributing to the > session. Please keep me on the loop in future exchanges about > it. Best! Marília > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Brett Solomon wrote: > >> I'd be in favor of a session at RightsCon that can be used as a space to >> cross pollinate ideas and understandings on governance from a diverse set >> of civil society actors. Many of the US based orgs will be there, as well >> as CS from across the world, and unpacking perspectives and mapping out >> plans could be useful at this stage. I also think its an opportunity to >> grow our sector by bringing in new actors who are not familiar with the >> Brazil event or the reasons that have lead to it. Let's think more about >> how to make this productive, and we very much welcome your input in >> developing the session further Marilia. Brett >> >> Brett Solomon >> Executive Director | Access >> accessnow.org >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >> Key ID: 0x312B641A >> >> >> *RightsCon Silicon Valley, March 3-5, 2014. Register interest now >> !* >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Hello all, this will certainly be a great session. I will definitely >>> connect remotely, if I am not in SF. I would just like to make a >>> suggestion. I agree with Jeremy that the session could be a moment to >>> discuss and plan CS participation in the meeting in Brazil. But I also feel >>> that there is a valuable opportunity to foster more understanding among >>> US-based CS and global CS, and to make the concerns of actors in the >>> developing world regarding the IG regime better understood. >>> >>> For example, the way that several US non-gov campaigns get framed as >>> "hands off the Internet" or against a supposed UN power grab always made me >>> feel a bit uncomfortable. Although this ideas are easy to communicate to >>> broader audience, I believe that, particularly during WCIT, they caused >>> misunderstanding by mixing up the positions countries like Russia and >>> Brazil, which have been historically different, and by demonizing the UN >>> and non-multistakeholder spaces as a whole. Since WCIT is one of the major >>> references to US organizations, as Jeremy mentioned, maybe the scope of the >>> session could be a bit broader in order to discuss what were the problems >>> and disfunctionalities in the regime that pushed many actors (CS, iStars) >>> to support change, in other words, to mention the underlying reasons that >>> led to Brazil. Problems have been pointed out before Snowden. When setting >>> the background of the RightsCon session, it would be important to show that >>> the meeting in Brazil may have been triggered by mass surveillance, but the >>> issue goes beyond it and precedes it. >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, I think that's a great idea. Perhaps what makes the most sense is >>>> to use the session for those in the network who are planning to develop >>>> ideas and submissions for Brazil and have discussions on the concrete >>>> proposals with the wider community. We can also make available some space >>>> for a side meeting/strategy session if there is interest. For both options, >>>> we would make sure that remote participation is available. Interested in >>>> hearing others' ideas as well. Please feel free to contact me on or off >>>> list if you're interested in discussing this further. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Deborah >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Puddephatt < >>>> Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Could we host a session focused on IG given that by then we should >>>>> have put together some ideas of our own for Brazil? >>>>> >>>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> Date: Saturday, 14 December 2013 06:36 >>>>> To: "" >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Save the Date: RightsCon Silicon Valley March >>>>> 3rd-5th, 2014 >>>>> >>>>> To follow up on Brett's message, just to let everyone know that we >>>>> a placeholder "Best Bits" session has been submitted for RightsCon, though >>>>> the original idea of using it to finalise inputs for the Brazil meeting >>>>> won't work out - because the deadline for those inputs is slightly too >>>>> soon. So, we need to find another theme for the meeting. Since many of >>>>> the US groups at RightsCon will be new to the international Internet >>>>> governance debates (except for maybe ICANN and WCIT), a couple of us >>>>> considered that it might be worthwhile to structure a session around more >>>>> closely integrating US based civil society into our community (which was >>>>> one of my original aims for Best Bits). >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, who is interested in sharing ideas (either these or other >>>>> ideas) and developing the session further? Deborah has offered to manage a >>>>> workflow for the session, if we are all happy for her to do that. What do >>>>> you all think? >>>>> >>>>> Also, separately to RightsCon, I should flag early that I have the >>>>> opportunity to arrange a Best Bits pre-meeting in S?o Paulo immediately >>>>> prior to the Brazil meeting, which would be hosted by IDEC, the largest >>>>> Brazilian consumer group. Of course at this stage, we don't know who will >>>>> be attending the Brazil meeting, so plans are at an early stage. But if >>>>> anyone is interested in hearing or discussing more about that, you can also >>>>> get in touch (perhaps off-list for now, until plans and funding are firmer). >>>>> >>>>> On 6 Dec 2013, at 11:40 pm, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear friends, >>>>> >>>>> As you may know, RightsCon Silicon Valley is >>>>> taking place March 3-5 in San Francisco at Mission Bay Conference Center. >>>>> This is an opportunity for different communities to come together - global >>>>> activists, companies, thinkers, investors, engineers and government >>>>> officials - to discuss the tensions and opportunities at the intersection >>>>> of human rights and the internet. >>>>> >>>>> RightsCon Silicon Valley has a particular focus on technology >>>>> companies and aims to create a space for multistakeholder dialogue on human >>>>> rights best practices and learnings in the context of the private sector. >>>>> The event also takes place 7 weeks before the Brazil meeting and as I >>>>> mentioned could be used as a venue to discuss strategy and plans for April. >>>>> >>>>> The program is open to submissions, and we're looking to a range of >>>>> networks, including the Bestbits community to help shape the agenda. Here >>>>> is the link to propose a session. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The deadline for submission is December 20th. If you have questions, >>>>> check out the website at rightscon.org, or >>>>> email Rian Wanstreet at rian at accessnow.org, or we can chat more on >>>>> this list. >>>>> >>>>> For those of you who have participated in RightsCon in the past, we >>>>> look forward to seeing you again. >>>>> >>>>> Enjoy your weekends! >>>>> >>>>> Brett >>>>> >>>>> *Speakers to date include: *Rebecca MacKinnon (Ranking Digital >>>>> Rights); Alaa Abd El Fattah (one of Egypt's most respected activists and >>>>> software engineers (currently detained)); Jim Cowie (CTO, Renesys); John >>>>> Donahoe (President & CEO, eBay); Moez Chakchouk (Founder of Tunisia's IXP >>>>> and 404Labs); Brad Burnham (Union Square Ventures); Colin Crowell (Head of >>>>> Global Public Policy, Twitter); Michael Posner (NYU Professor of Business >>>>> and Society); Eileen Donahoe (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human >>>>> Rights Council); Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of >>>>> Expression, EFF); ; Richard Stallman (Founder GNU Project and Free Software >>>>> Foundation); David Gorodyansky (CEO & Founder, AnchorFree); Mitchell Baker >>>>> (Chairperson, Mozilla Corporation) and many more. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brett Solomon >>>>> Executive Director | Access >>>>> accessnow.org >>>>> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>>>> Key ID: 0x312B641A >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as 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 Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the >>>>> global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>>> Malaysia >>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>> >>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >>>>> hub | >>>>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>>> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Deborah Brown >>>> Senior Policy Analyst >>>> Access | accessnow.org >>>> rightscon.org >>>> >>>> @deblebrown >>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Marília Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 6 15:42:57 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:42:57 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lea at gp-digital.org Thu Jan 9 19:51:22 2014 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:51:22 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation - input on mechanisms required In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Marilia, Thanks for pointing this out. You are right, this is still a contentious point and the group hasn’t reached a conclusion on the definition. In my understanding, the current mapping aims to list ALL examples where EC (however you define it) is taking place in dealing with identified internet-related public policy issues. By looking at various mechanisms (as Phil’s email says, “in the widest sense this includes policy spaces or forums”), the WGEC should then be able to say (or at least say more easily) where the gaps are and come up with a set of recommendations about areas where improvement is needed (if any). As a good starting point to understand where the Group stands on this, i recommend to look at the Chair’s Analysis of the responses to the WGEC Questionnaire (http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC_Summary_of_Responses.pdf) and the summary of the 2nd Meeting (http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/WGEC_2013_Chairmans_summary_en.pdf). To sum up, the Chair identified 3 groups of opinions on whether or not EC is taking place within WGEC: 1) that EC has been taking place in a number of areas (mostly developed countries); 2) that EC hasn’t been taking place (e.g. Saudi Arabia), and 3) that it has been taking place, but there is room for improvement (e.g. Brazil). These positions seem to be closely linked to whether the actors define enhanced cooperation as a government-only game (which roughly leads to position 2), or if they share a broader view (which leads to positions 1 or 3). (There is more nuance to these positions, so apologies for any reductionism on my part as I try to summarise – others, feel free to jump in and expand/amend.) NB – a number of stakeholders who share your view that EC refers to multistakeholder arrangements argued that while progress has been made in setting this up since Tunis (IGF was often mentioned) – more needed to be done to make participation in policy processes on an “equal footing” apply to a full range of relevant stakeholders and issue areas. Does this help? Happy to discuss further. Best, Lea ________________________________________ From: Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com] Sent: 09 January 2014 22:44 To: Lea Kaspar Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation - input on mechanisms required Dear Lea, Thank you for the information and for seeking input from this broader group. I have not followed the work of the WGEC as closely as I would like to, therefore I have a doubt regarding the framing of this consultation you brought to our attention. The attached e-mail asks to identify "mechanisms" (plural, and I read this is fora) where enhanced cooperation exists. Therefore, it seems to depart from the assumption that EC is already being implemented in many different spaces. As far as I remember from the CSTD discussions on EC where I participated, wether EC was already in place or not was one of the key issues on this debate. If EC means something like "discussions taking place in a multistakeholder fashion", whenever that happened we could say that there was EC. On the other hand, if EC means something specific, then probably it is something yet to be created. Given how the question was framed, I would like to know if the WG has already taken a stance on this issue, if they have agreed on a working definition of EC and what was it. Sorry if this has already been discussed at some point. Thanks! Marília On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Lea Kaspar > wrote: Dear all, As you may know, the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC; http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC.aspx) is currently mapping mechanisms where enhanced cooperation is taking place, and assessing those mechanisms. The mapping is expected to form the basis of the Working Groups' recommendations. The first leg of the mapping exercise is being done remotely by a subgroup coordinated by Phil Rushton and Joy Liddicoat, called the Correspondence Group (which some on this list are a part of, including myself). Phil has contacted the Correspondence Group to ask for input in to the process (see below). The inputs are being organised according to a list of 24 broad areas of internet-related public policy, the list of areas is in the attachment. Although input has only been sought from the Correspondence Group members, I would be happy to consolidate any input from the broader civil society into one submission. If you want to contribute, please send me any examples you want included by January 24th. This should not stop anyone already a member of CG from submitting their own input directly, but rather making sure that a broad civil society view is taken into the next WGEC meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Lea ----- From: gec at LIST.UNICC.ORG> [mailto:gec at LIST.UNICC.ORG] On Behalf Of Private Sector Phil Rushton Sent: 07 January 2014 20:58 To: CGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG> Subject: CSTD WG on EC - input on mechanisms required Dear Colleague First many thanks for volunteering to assist in identifying where the mechanisms of enhanced co-operation exists, and second, apologies for the delay in getting the base text to you. The information that is being sought (and which is described below) should be provided to me by January 31st. This will allow for a second round of clarification, if required, prior to the information being submitted to the CSTD WG meeting in February. The attached document has had its 200+ policy issues grouped into 24 broad areas (listed in column B), and it is against these broad areas that your input is sought. The input that is being sought in these various broad areas is to: a. Use the identified broad areas of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in the attached spreadsheet that has been developed in the second meeting of the WGEC (and since updated). (NB) Additional issues may be added to the identified public policy issues if agreed by the WGEC. And (b) list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list (c) identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing the issues Please provide evidence or examples of where some or all stakeholders in their broadest sense (Government, Industry, Academia, Business and Civil Society) have engaged in working together on that issue. The detail that is being sought, where it is known, is as follows: * the name of the mechanism (in the widest sense this includes policy spaces or forums); * the stakeholders involved, * details of any discussions, or where such details can be read, * dates started, completed; * current status of mechanism discussion, etc. Regards Phil Rushton Standards and Numbering Policy Strategy BT Technology Service & Operations ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Marília Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Thu Jan 9 20:25:48 2014 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 20:25:48 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <5B683298-EB9F-4CB3-AB23-8DCE4606CE84@gmail.com> Jon Postel died in a California Hospital in October 1998 from complications after heart surgery. During this time period ICANN was being established. There was no connection between the two events. It is insulting to characterize Jon's exit as a "gentle move," although he was a gentle guy who was widely respected for the thought and work that he put into the creation and evolution of the early Internet. Rod's accession to his WEF position and ICANN's interest in being present at the WEF are independent events. Rod has no current connection with ICANN. There is no conspiracy here. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Jan 9, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Thanks John, > > Le 10 janv. 2014 à 00:17, John Curran a écrit : > >> Jean-Christophe - >> >> Samsung Electronics is very likely to have paid for his travel and participation, given >> his registration for the event and his being credited with speaking under such title. > I share your view on this. > >> >> References: http://www.weforum.org/global-agenda-councils/rod-beckstrom > Indeed there are some very good facts in that one! >> >> - >> "Ensuring the future of the Internet and its open environment is another global priority that requires a cooperative approach, Rod A. Beckstrom, Chief Security Adviser at Samsung Electronics, USA, told participants." > > ICANN had announced that it would link to the WEF weeks before Beckstrom participated in Abu Dabhi. Could it be that the WEF (not Beckstrom) would take the risk to upset ICANN by giving the floor to Fadi's predecessor? The WEF is very precise and do not act without some solid reasons ($$). I'll get the facts about this. >> >> Do not let the lack of this factual basis distract you from your otherwise amusing >> theories connecting ICANN to yet another conspiracy. > > I see no conspiracy. I see a very political situation, and I see political reasoning and logic, specially since Dubai and Snowden, in the same manner I do not understand Jon Postel exit as a gentle move, or accidental move but a highly political decision and will. > And do no mistake me : I give credit to professionals like Fadi et al that they know what is a good strategy and a good communication plan. Could it be that the big challenge Fadi has over his shoulders be dealt on a daily basis, without a long term perspective? ICANN is playing its survival at the international level. And I have no reason to think that the State Department and a few other major players do not have a clear understanding of how Fadi wants to play the ball. > > That being said, all of that is directly related to what is (or is not) happening with the Brazilian/ICANN meeting. > > Night > JC > >> >> Thanks! >> /John >> >> Disclaimer - My views alone. >> >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> >>> You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! >>> >>> As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. >>> >>> A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. >>> >>> What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... >>> >>> Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much will ICANN spend to be seen in Davos under the umbrella of the cutting edge of MS governance? Nothing to worry when one checks the 2014 ICANN budget. It's all there). >> >>> >>> Was it necessary for ICANN and its internationalization dressing to go to bed with the most out-dated global room service for leaders (in Davos), the most expensive concierge of global fluff consultancy. The WEF is so multistakeholder that these doing-all-we-can-for-a-better-world people are accepting tons of $ from the Russian and the Chinese with no hesitation (remember the villains in the Internet power grab fiction, the enemies of the Holy and Unified Internet). I work a few miles away from the WEF (left bank is UN and NGOs, right bank is WEF, bankers and lawyers here in Geneva) and if the WEF is the cutting edge of MS governance, then, apart from me being the Pope, this model won't survive very long. This is a big joke. Me in Pope I mean. >>> ... >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 9 22:53:24 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:53:24 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation - input on mechanisms required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52CF6EB4.1030400@ciroap.org> On 10/01/14 06:44, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Thank you for the information and for seeking input from this broader > group. > I have not followed the work of the WGEC as closely as I would like > to, therefore I have a doubt regarding the framing of this > consultation you brought to our attention. The attached e-mail asks to > identify "mechanisms" (plural, and I read this is fora) where enhanced > cooperation exists. You're right that this is incongruous, however Phil only mentions "enhanced cooperation" in the introductory paragraph of his email, which I take as an individual form of words from him, rather than as part of the framing of the task for the correspondence group that the WGEC has chosen. Below that - presumably approved by the WGEC - it just talks about "examples of where some or all stakeholders in their broadest sense…have engaged in working together". We should probably couch any response in terms that makes it clear that we are not necessarily accepting that the above is an adequate or specific enough definition of enhanced cooperation. I also queried on the list as to why there was no scope for the correspondence group to suggest ways of filling the gaps where enhanced cooperation is not taking place. This seems to be a more important issue. Why do you need to crowdsource the production of a list of areas where there are no gaps? A single expert could do that! The reason for a correspondence group, I would have thought, would be to gather different opinions about the best way of dealing with the areas where there are gaps. So I'm a bit worried about where this process is going. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 9 23:19:53 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:19:53 +1100 Subject: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. From joy at apc.org Thu Jan 9 23:55:55 2014 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:55:55 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation - input on mechanisms required In-Reply-To: <52CF6EB4.1030400@ciroap.org> References: <52CF6EB4.1030400@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52CF7D5B.3070000@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all - just a note to hopefully assist with answering your questions (I am co-chair of the correspondence group and assisting Phil with this task). Marilia: The TOR of this are available here: http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 - in particular: 5. The Correspondence Group will: (a) Review the identified international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in the spreadsheet that has been developed in the second meeting of the WGEC. (NB) Additional issues may be added to the identified public policy issues if agreed by the WGEC. (b) List where there are existing international mechanisms addressing the issues in the list (c) Identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are addressing the issues (d) Attempt to identify the gaps in order to ascertain what type of recommendations may be required to be drafted by the WGEC. 6. Any issue that cannot reach consensus in the Correspondence Group will be referred to the Working Group, with the options that represent the range of opinions expressed in the Correspondence Group. The final decision on such issues will be made by the WGEC. 7. This Correspondence Group does not replace the WGEC and will not take any decision pertaining to the mandate of WGEC. As you can see - the term "mechanisms" came from the TOR itself, which were agreed by the working group last November. Jeremy - in relation to "gaps" - the intention was for this will be the next step in the exercise (item (d)) once the initial steps (a) - (c) have been completed. But by all means, if you consider that there are gaps and wish to highlight these now, please do so. I will also respond on the mailing list of the correspondence working group. Kind regards Joy Liddicoat On 10/01/2014 4:53 p.m., Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10/01/14 06:44, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Thank you for the information and for seeking input from this broader group. >> I have not followed the work of the WGEC as closely as I would like to, therefore I have a doubt regarding the framing of this consultation you brought to our attention. The attached e-mail asks to identify "mechanisms" (plural, and I read this is fora) where enhanced cooperation exists. > > You're right that this is incongruous, however Phil only mentions "enhanced cooperation" in the introductory paragraph of his email, which I take as an individual form of words from him, rather than as part of the framing of the task for the correspondence group that the WGEC has chosen. Below that - presumably approved by the WGEC - it just talks about "examples of where some or all stakeholders in their broadest sense…have engaged in working together". We should probably couch any response in terms that makes it clear that we are not necessarily accepting that the above is an adequate or specific enough definition of enhanced cooperation. > > I also queried on the list as to why there was no scope for the correspondence group to suggest ways of filling the gaps where enhanced cooperation is not taking place. This seems to be a more important issue. Why do you need to crowdsource the production of a list of areas where there are no gaps? A single expert could do that! The reason for a correspondence group, I would have thought, would be to gather different opinions about the best way of dealing with the areas where there are gaps. So I'm a bit worried about where this process is going. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSz31bAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqrhcIAJCkmZH+KWMA0Emwx9axxu8D 4Y5bs/lP04gl8zOoBWzGEH3D2GhEKeh0KYqVZgVjF53DJbKov43W2YE9PHRW3t+E zBqX1OFbLkcw4jT0qHJiEG/+2Iv7PMTCrKPU32nYMbOZKX4tTj190xG3dLSPWjbc CVRxPcUJrr2M5vUfYHPjQQHAMQImkUALtfs1RR3R/xuxs4mINHIZuru3Se5kqHmM XdiDDDA7TeiFNFHHM3Do+ilSM3/ER2Y5yCnaCz74BWMaV9EqTd7K/QnxFY+nesVA P6vdLPb0+REc+lNVSqLqt3Gv+lSPNlvy1AXVlOCsR0UzP55R2kxsRDMUjaJ6fUM= =Lvpt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Jan 10 02:13:34 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:13:34 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <65D53B74-84F8-42B4-84BF-738B51BEEC39@theglobaljournal.net> I would certainly not go into a conspiracy here. I would simply emphasize the fact that at the time the enormous pressure on him was certainly not of great help regarding his personal health. You are right to say that Postel just passed away, like we will all do. His 'exit' is not about his death by underlies the way he was taken off the Internet pre-historic governance road. In the months before his passing away, the overall 'governance' went through a complete reshuffle. As he resisted the move, Postel went through a rather hard time, facing Magaziner's assignment to transform the by-then governance of the Internet into something different, something that could be given to the USG, which would officially give it back to a new entity labeled ICANN. Had the USG to take into its hands, and anymore right to give to a Californian non profit with no check and balance except from the Department of Commerce? Since then ICANN has never proved strong enough to become independent from its master. This wrong turn in digital history has been more than documented but that many tend to ignore. So I feel I can stop here on that. I do not see conspiracy here, but plain politics and power game. That sounds to me like having a fresh memory is very useful when we think of building a new system of governance in the context of international data and meta-data. As the concentration of power is highly asymmetrical, we can obviously expected a strong resistance to changing the status quo. Very common sense. Not true? Until, people will call a cat a cat in the current debate, I do not see much progress coming. Would you say the Brazilian/Icann conference is a model of good governance? When I look at 1net, it looks like proof of the contrary. Do you see a conspiracy there? Usual politics I would say. Brazil has certainly something to win by giving away an initial conference called by a very upset Rousseff. We will soon enough learn about what is the bargain. Now we have more or less a Brazilian/Icannesque roadshow. Brazil will launch its digital magna carta and more or less nothing will change. Nice job Dilma. Le 10 janv. 2014 à 01:14, Jorge Amodio a écrit : > > I see no conspiracy. I see a very political situation, and I see political reasoning and logic, specially since Dubai and Snowden, in the same manner I do not understand Jon Postel exit as a gentle move, or accidental move but a highly political decision and will. > > Well, well, I think that now you just crossed the line showing how a delusional jerk you are. > > Jon Postel didn't gentle exit anything, he just passed away due to illness at the time ICANN was taking form. > > If you really want to contribute some reasonable opinion, constructive or not, do so, but this constant stream of conspiracy theories and non-sense is getting extremely boring and useless. > > -Jorge > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Jan 10 02:26:59 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:26:59 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] ICANN and WEF (was: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation) In-Reply-To: <5B683298-EB9F-4CB3-AB23-8DCE4606CE84@gmail.com> References: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> <52CD7251.6050805@itforchange.net> <03B055A2-7458-4B8D-9794-86E0CF3C8905@arin.net> <82AB84FA-0433-4716-92B7-D92559C2E285@theglobaljournal.net> <153582B7-AB0E-4BE0-A8F3-811E352408F4@theglobaljournal.net> <5B683298-EB9F-4CB3-AB23-8DCE4606CE84@gmail.com> Message-ID: Le 10 janv. 2014 à 02:25, George Sadowsky a écrit : > Jon Postel died in a California Hospital in October 1998 from complications after heart surgery. During this time period ICANN was being established. There was no connection between the two events. Every one knows about the heart surgery Georges. I made a comment on this directly to Jorge. You are misleading people when there is an obvious link between pre-ICANN and post-ICANN governances. Postel was part of that link and resisting the shift. > > It is insulting to characterize Jon's exit as a "gentle move," although he was a gentle guy who was widely respected for the thought and work that he put into the creation and evolution of the early Internet. Insulting Postel memory is clear to me : to deny his resistance to the USG takeover and his high concern about where IG was going to end. We have now a small taste of where it went since then. > > Rod's accession to his WEF position and ICANN's interest in being present at the WEF are independent events. Rod has no current connection with ICANN. There is no conspiracy here. Sure, sure! But have fun, and listen to what he said - by the way, I don't think RB gained any specific position at the WEF - I will check with the WEF. He appeared as a panelist on the Future of Internet Multistakeholder Governance. I also have to check the dates (ICANN48 and that WEF meeting were maybe conflicting on the same agenda slot) Would you like to label this a conspiracy? As you wish. But again, certainly not in my eyes. > > George Sadowsky > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> Thanks John, >> >> Le 10 janv. 2014 à 00:17, John Curran a écrit : >> >>> Jean-Christophe - >>> >>> Samsung Electronics is very likely to have paid for his travel and participation, given >>> his registration for the event and his being credited with speaking under such title. >> I share your view on this. >> >>> >>> References: http://www.weforum.org/global-agenda-councils/rod-beckstrom >> Indeed there are some very good facts in that one! >>> >>> - >>> "Ensuring the future of the Internet and its open environment is another global priority that requires a cooperative approach, Rod A. Beckstrom, Chief Security Adviser at Samsung Electronics, USA, told participants." >> >> ICANN had announced that it would link to the WEF weeks before Beckstrom participated in Abu Dabhi. Could it be that the WEF (not Beckstrom) would take the risk to upset ICANN by giving the floor to Fadi's predecessor? The WEF is very precise and do not act without some solid reasons ($$). I'll get the facts about this. >>> >>> Do not let the lack of this factual basis distract you from your otherwise amusing >>> theories connecting ICANN to yet another conspiracy. >> >> I see no conspiracy. I see a very political situation, and I see political reasoning and logic, specially since Dubai and Snowden, in the same manner I do not understand Jon Postel exit as a gentle move, or accidental move but a highly political decision and will. >> And do no mistake me : I give credit to professionals like Fadi et al that they know what is a good strategy and a good communication plan. Could it be that the big challenge Fadi has over his shoulders be dealt on a daily basis, without a long term perspective? ICANN is playing its survival at the international level. And I have no reason to think that the State Department and a few other major players do not have a clear understanding of how Fadi wants to play the ball. >> >> That being said, all of that is directly related to what is (or is not) happening with the Brazilian/ICANN meeting. >> >> Night >> JC >> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer - My views alone. >>> >>> On Jan 9, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >>> >>>> You are writing your own fiction here David... Beckstrom and 1net is a fruit of your imagination. The point is about Beckstrom, ICANN and the WEF. Very theatrical! >>>> >>>> As an observer to the current situation, I was very interested to see and listen to Beckstrom as he was participating with other I* vets, in a panel during a recent WEF meeting in Abu Dhabi. >>>> >>>> A meeting to prepare the next Davos summit -remember the communication plan of ICANN? There he advocated, as a good little soldier, that the I* had the perfect understanding of governance under a multistakeholder model, linking it to the WEF which he described as the cutting edge of multistakeholder governance - and call the audience to save the world by saving the MS model, brought as the Holy Grail to the planet by the I stars and stripes. He made various statements, all of that putting a bit additional fluff to what is going on right now. This brings the ICANN dramaturgy and current campaign to new level of narcissism. Nothing more nothing less. >>>> >>>> What is happening right now is that we are slowly uncovering the way things are happening for IG, and the way the MS model allows people to fool other people, whoever each of them are. We do not govern, we coordinate. We do not have strategic thoughts, we give direction and let it be. We are the invisible hand (very well paid) that is truly protecting Internauts, as long as they pay gently for their access to the Net.... >>>> >>>> Beckstrom says what he wants but it cannot be that he attended a WEF preparatory meeting without Fadi's 'go' on that, and, most importantly, having the WEF with a clear perspective of a big incoming check in their pocket at the end of January 2014. Sorry guys, Swiss fares! (how much will ICANN spend to be seen in Davos under the umbrella of the cutting edge of MS governance? Nothing to worry when one checks the 2014 ICANN budget. It's all there). >>> >>>> >>>> Was it necessary for ICANN and its internationalization dressing to go to bed with the most out-dated global room service for leaders (in Davos), the most expensive concierge of global fluff consultancy. The WEF is so multistakeholder that these doing-all-we-can-for-a-better-world people are accepting tons of $ from the Russian and the Chinese with no hesitation (remember the villains in the Internet power grab fiction, the enemies of the Holy and Unified Internet). I work a few miles away from the WEF (left bank is UN and NGOs, right bank is WEF, bankers and lawyers here in Geneva) and if the WEF is the cutting edge of MS governance, then, apart from me being the Pope, this model won't survive very long. This is a big joke. Me in Pope I mean. >>>> ... >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 03:43:01 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:13:01 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: CSTD WG on EC - input on mechanisms required In-Reply-To: <52CFB234.6050908@gmail.com> References: <52CFB234.6050908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52CFB295.1080100@itforchange.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: CSTD WG on EC - input on mechanisms required Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:09:43 +0530 From: Parminder To: Correspondence Group of the WGEC CC: Private Sector Phil Rushton Dear Phil Thanks for beginning this important exercise. Respectfully, I will like to point two issues with your exercise framing email below, which has already led to some confusion in some civil society groups to which it was forwarded. Firstly, the agreed language of the ToR of the group is to identify existing 'international mechanism' that may be addressing the listed issues and not to identify 'where mechanism of enhanced cooperation exists'.... The distinction is important, as you have seen during the debates, because there is no unanimity yet on what can be called as 'enhanced cooperation' and many WGE members have said that in their opinion 'enhanced cooperation' has not yet taken off. To quote from India's response, for instance. "Enhanced Cooperation, as envisaged in Paras 68 and 69 of the Tunis Agenda, has not been realized." There are many other similar submissions. Your framing will put those who think so in a very difficult situation. Would filling in anything at all about some international mechanism mean that they admit that EC is taking place? Or, alternatively, to be safe, shouldtheysimply not participate in this exercise. It is therefore best to stick to the exact language of the ToR, which you know was negotiated over a long time.I am enclosing the group's ToR for easy reference. Secondly, out of the four tasks for the correspondence group, task (d) which is to "attempt to identify the gaps" is the most important one, and earlier tasks (a), (b) and (c) are to be undertaken with a view to be able to contribute to (d)... This sequence and hierarchy is also clear from the agreed ToR which links point (d) directly with the recommendations that the group has to come up with. Focussing on "gaps" is also consistent with the original mandate given by UN GA to the WGEC, that is the real purpose here. However, your framing email below, while mentioning points (a), (b) and (c) from the ToR, completely omits point (d), which is the most important one, and to which others must lead towards. It is important that against each issue category, group members are able to make comments about the nature of the gaps they see. Otherwise we will simply have some listing against each category by those who think an issue is being addressed by so and so, but those who think there is a gap there will not be able to make any comment. For instance, I can see that IGF will be listed against each category (it being a different matter that it is universally known IGF does not "address" any public policies in the sense of developing public policies which is the issue under the EC rubric). Just trying to make the work of the CG more purposeful and useful for final recommendations of the WGEC. Thanks and best regards parminder On Wednesday 08 January 2014 02:27 AM, Private Sector Phil Rushton wrote: > Dear Colleague > First many thanks for volunteering to assist in identifying where the > mechanisms of enhanced co-operation exists, and second, apologies for > the delay in getting the base text to you. The information that is > being sought (and which is described below) should be provided to me > by January 31^st . This will allow for a second round of > clarification, if required, prior to the information being submitted > to the CSTD WG meeting in February. > The attached document has had its 200+ policy issues grouped into 24 > broad areas (listed in column B), and it is against these broad areas > that your input is sought. The input that is being sought in these > various broad areas is to: > > 1. Use the identified broad areas of international public policy > issues pertaining to the Internet in the attached spreadsheet that > has been developed in the second meeting of the WGEC (and since > updated). /(NB) Additional issues may be added to the identified > public policy issues if agreed by the WGEC//./ > > And > (b) list where there are existing international mechanisms addressing > the issues in the list > (c) identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are > addressing the issues > Please provide evidence or examples of where some or all stakeholders > in their broadest sense (Government, Industry, Academia, Business and > Civil Society) have engaged in working together on that issue. > The detail that is being sought, where it is known, is as follows: > > * the name of the mechanism (in the widest sense this includes > policy spaces or forums); > * the stakeholders involved, > * details of any discussions, or where such details can be read, > * dates started, completed; > * current status of mechanism discussion, etc. > > Regards > *Phil Rushton* > *Standards and Numbering Policy Strategy* > *BT Technology Service & Operations,* > > > *Office: + 44 (0) 1977 594807 > Fax : +44 (0) 1908 862698 > Email: *_*philip.m.rushton at bt.com*_ > This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or > confidential. > It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're > not the intended recipient, note that disclosing, copying, > distributing or using this information > is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me > know immediately > on the email address above. Thank you. > We monitor our email system, and may record your emails. > British Telecommunications plc > Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ > Registered in England no: 1800000 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Terms of Reference for the Correspondence Group of WGEC Final.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.word Size: 4541 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jan 10 03:48:00 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:48:00 +0900 Subject: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Ian, You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) Adam On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. > > From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. > > However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. > > Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. > > But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. > > So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. > > > > > From: Carolina Rossini > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM > To: parminder > Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel > > No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). > :-) > So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. > So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. > hugs > C > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> Dear folks, >> >> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. > > Carolina > > Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. > > Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. > > That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) > > Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? > > When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... > > I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. > > Thanks, parminder > > > >> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >> >> -- >> Carol (in my personal capacity) >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 10 04:29:06 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:29:06 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation - input on mechanisms required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52CFBD62.1000304@ciroap.org> On 10/01/14 06:21, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Although input has only been sought from the Correspondence Group members, I would be happy to consolidate any input from the broader civil society into one submission. If you want to contribute, please send me any examples you want included by January 24th. > > This should not stop anyone already a member of CG from submitting their own input directly, but rather making sure that a broad civil society view is taken into the next WGEC meeting. To make this easier, I have started an online spreadsheet: https://ethersheet.org/s/cgec I have added a fourth column for "gaps" as Parminder has illustrated that this was wrongly omitted. So far I have only contributed one row of information, on consumer rights, which can be taken as an example. Please make use of this. PS. We do also have a dedicated enhanced cooperation mailing list for Best Bits at ec at lists.bestbits.net, where we can move this conversation if traffic gets too heavy for the main list, and summarise back here. But for now, I guess it is fine. PPS. Once we have some (any!) funding for Best Bits, I will be setting up our own online pad and spreadsheet servers; for now, this sheet is hosted is on a public (but non-Google) server. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 6 22:06:54 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:06:54 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> Ian, I must object to your according to yourself and your grouping the mantle of “Civil Society”. Your group represents certain elements/organizations within Civil Society but there are many many other organizations and individuals who are not represented and perhaps don’t wish to be represented by your specific grouping. I would ask in further communications, which in principle are open to all, that this distinction be recognized and maintained. With best wishes, M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 3:43 AM To: Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 05:31:22 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:01:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Bdiscuss=5D_=5Bgovernance=5D_Mee?= =?UTF-8?Q?ting_in_S=C3=A3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_?= =?UTF-8?Q?the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> Dear Joana/ other Liaisons (or who were supposed to be Liaisons), Again, my responses are strictly political and not personal... Pl see inline On Thursday 09 January 2014 06:18 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > Sorry for not clarifing this yesterday, was having hard time to find > ur msg again in the deep sea of emails in my inbox. > > All I can say is that, unfortunately, the Brazilian government has > never taken into consideration the role of the liaisons. Since CS groups gave you the mandate, if you were unable to fulfil it, this should have been immediately reported back to us. On the other hand, even when I repeatedly, and Ian and Jeremy once each, asked for 'what is happening', there has been no report. This in not my understanding is how Liaisons work. There is a little point knowing this now, when this thing called 1Net, to confront whose likely single-conduit role you all were appointed as liaisons, is firmly in place and driving the process. As a person who took a primary role in insisting that we appoint Liaisons immediately, in face of a lot of foot dragging among many, and also suggested that 4 Brazilians at hand be asked to do this job, I must express complete disappointment on how this role has been played... In fact, I know of nothing at all that got done vis a vis this role. I am happy to be told otherwise. > We were never invited to any single meeting that has been assembled > with ICANN and interactions were always about us knocking on everyones > doors to try to be informed. Again, no one told anyone of us... Again, the word is 'Liaison'... Why did you not report this back and we would have wrote another letter, or found another strategy to deal with this situation. > On the other hand, this nomination did serve as an incentive for the > four/three of us to get together and work to assemble information > through different channels and communicate whatever we could grasp to > the international community. Can you provide me an instance of such a communication. > As Carolina has already explained in a previous email exchange with > you. If it was not good enough, be assure, we have been doing our best. I am not convinced... I did not know till date the fact now being presented that despite your attempts you were not allowed into any of the meetings, and given no information. Which simply means that Brazilians completely ignored the letter that 4 key civil society networks wrote to them - after all these groups having communicated the same things to the Brazilians in person at Bali... Why dont you, and we as civil society, consider this a serious issue? I do. (I am positive that if they have been treating civil society like it it is because we are allowing them to treat us like this. Why? The question is, why?) > > My email to Glaser mentioning to consider 1net steering was because he > mentioned that the meeting was with "LOG and representatives from 1net". We need to first remind the LOG, no, civil society wants to directly talk to LOG, that was the mandate given to you by CS groups in Bali... We dont have to simply accept things, which in fact go expressly against the mandate given to the Liaisons which is to not accept 1Net as the conduit for CS interactions with the Brazilians... Please let me know if you think that this was not the mandate, and we can discuss it here. > If that was the scope of the conversation, my natural reaction was to > wonder: which 1net representative? If 1net had just passed through a > process of electing representatives, why not referring to the elected > ones? Basically, I was just working in the scope of possibilities that > the LOG has given us with that email. Again, the CS letter clearly said, you 3 or 4 as our Liaisons have to deal directly with the Brazilians and not through 1Net.... I know I am repeating it again and again but that was pretty much what we decided at Bali when the role was given to you... > > The capacity of 1net to be a truly multistakeholder is yet to be seen. > The steering have just been formed. So, of course, I'm not defending > 1net's role, People have a right to take whatever political position they want to take vis a vis 1Net.... But as CS Liaisons given a role which was expressly to develop direct conduits to LOG (a mandate given in the express context of 1Net wanting to be the conduit) I think you needed to report back to us before you took the alternative approach, which was directly opposed to the mandate given to you.. Please no hard feelings... Everyone is doing our political jobs here, and I have the job to defend the interests and constituencies that I work for... It is very disappointing that after long discussions took place on both IGC and BB lists where there was clear preponderance of view that civil society should act independently and not through 1Net, which we all know where it comes from and what its strategic objective is (read ICANN resolution if you have any doubt), a good part of the leadership, whether through acts of commission or commission has landed civil society right in the lap of 1Net. This remains as unacceptable to me now as it was at Bali and pre Bali... Others may have changed their views, but I havent. (The least one can do however if to inform that their views have been changed, and the reason for it). And well, this is too important a matter for a small group of people to decide - whether IG civil society would want an independent and direct-relationship status at global IG meetings or go only through an ICANN developed space. I am sure that majority of actors in the IGC and BB want an independent status and a direct / un-intermediated relationship with meeting organisers. And not have to do as a part of platform created by ICANN and dominated by global big business. I would request IGC and BB list to take a vote from the membership whether civil society wants an independent status and direct relationship to the Brazil meeting, or do it only as part of 1Net. This is urgently required. To me, this is almost a constitutive issue for IG related civil society. parminder > as we still don't know what it is. My intention was to pass this > message to LOG: if 1net is meant to be legitimate, or is meant to be > the conduit by any form, which is questionable, then, please, refer > also to elected representatives of that network. Otherwise, we would > be there just to legitimate something else, I role that I'm not > comfortable with. > > That's basically it. Sorry if my msg was unclear to you by any chance > (I know that, at least for the other liaisons, it would not be taken > as any kind of action to exclude then. We cannot be excluded, if we > were never included. We are working in the sense that if two ears or > one mouth from the three of us in on the room, it is already a win.) > > Looking forward for the committees to be formed so we can stop jumping > at people's windoms to collect information or drop suggestions that > might not be taken into consideration. So we could focus on what > pleasures me the most: research and building collective solutions. > > Hope it makes it clear to you. I know you are annoyed by many > questions, but we are all annoyed and anxious too. Just the reactions > are different, I've been trying to keep the positivity and patience, > as the challenge LOG is facing is huge and I still trust they have the > best of intentions. Maybe I'm naive. > > all the best > > joana > > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:26 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Dear Glaser, >> >> Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the >> steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the >> next planning meetings? >> >> At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives >> in the various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at >> least representatives from international civil society should >> attend such meetings to report back to it's constituencies. >> >> As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now >> trying to create some legitimacy for this network by electing >> it's representatives for the steering/coordination committee, I >> think that at least enabling elected representatives for 1net to >> attend and report back should be a way forward to start opening >> up the planing process while the Br committees are not formed yet. > > Joana > > Before you were sent to 1Net by some CS groups (for a task never > too clear to me) you were asked to be CS Liaison to the Brazilians > to ensure that CS has a direct relationship with them and our that > relationship is not mediated. I remember that at Bali your views > were also quite strong on this issue. Now you are slipping in an > acceptance of the 1Net's mediating role as fait accompli, and > telling us that you are trying to contribute to building > legitimacy for 1Net.. > > I must admit, i remain thoroughly surprised by whatever is > happening, and in the closed manner that it is happening... > > Hope that we can hear some words of clarification from you and > others... > > parminder > >> IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this process. >> >> all the best >> >> joana >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> researcher >> Center for Technology and Society >> Fundação Getulio Vargas >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser >> > wrote: >> >> >> _*URGENT INFORMATION*__*/CLARIFICATION*_ >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the >> local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details >> related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's >> committees. >> >> _This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's__ __process,_ since >> they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all >> stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. >> >> Thanks for your support. >> >> Local Organizing Group/CGI.br >> BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Jan 10 06:01:10 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:01:10 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5Bdiscuss=5D_=5Bgovernance=5D_Meet?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ing_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> Hi On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:31 AM, parminder wrote: > We need to first remind the LOG, no, civil society wants to directly talk to LOG Once again, please, some participants from two civil society networks who were in Bali want to talk directly to the LOG rather than through the people they put on the 1net SC to, um, talk to the LOG (and who indeed have asked the 1net to communicate for them to the LOG). > I would request IGC and BB list to take a vote from the membership whether civil society wants an independent status and direct relationship to the Brazil meeting, or do it only as part of 1Net. This is urgently required. I agree, this has been going on for two months now. Some folks saying this is what IGC and BB folks in Bali agreed and that’s our final position, others saying other things, and most IGC members and BB subscribers (there are no members) unaware, unconcerned, or in any event not weighing in. It’s causing continuing confusion in the LOG, the 1Net SC, other stakeholder groups, etc. So whether there’s rough consensus that the position is unchanged or changed in light of the evolution since Bali, let’s please get clear on it so the communication with others stops causing confusion. I am a IGC member and BB subscriber and I favor working through the 1net SC as the Brazilians have asked. I’m also a 1net SC member representing academia. Thanks Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 06:18:43 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:48:43 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5Bdiscuss=5D_=5Bgovernance=5D_Me?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?eting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_bet?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ween_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> Bill I appreciate the clear statement of your view, which is consistent with what you have been saying for many weeks. I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... Not tell us that well this is what has already happened and so.... But what is their preferences (and what was it at Bali, and if there is a change of view, some clarification will be extremely helpful). I also agree with Bill that we should stop causing confusion, and clearly arrive at a view and tell it to the outside world. parminder PS: Marking to IGC, where I would like this issue to be put to vote. On Friday 10 January 2014 04:31 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:31 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> We need to first remind the LOG, no, civil society wants to directly >> talk to LOG > > Once again, please, some participants from two civil society networks > who were in Bali want to talk directly to the LOG rather than through > the people they put on the 1net SC to, um, talk to the LOG (and who > indeed have asked the 1net to communicate for them to the LOG). > >> I would request IGC and BB list to take a vote from the membership >> whether civil society wants an independent status and direct >> relationship to the Brazil meeting, or do it only as part of 1Net. >> This is urgently required. > > I agree, this has been going on for two months now. Some folks saying > this is what IGC and BB folks in Bali agreed and that’s our final > position, others saying other things, and most IGC members and BB > subscribers (there are no members) unaware, unconcerned, or in any > event not weighing in. It’s causing continuing confusion in the LOG, > the 1Net SC, other stakeholder groups, etc. So whether there’s rough > consensus that the position is unchanged or changed in light of the > evolution since Bali, let’s please get clear on it so the > communication with others stops causing confusion. > > I am a IGC member and BB subscriber and I favor working through the > 1net SC as the Brazilians have asked. I’m also a 1net SC member > representing academia. > > Thanks > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Jan 10 07:53:24 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 07:53:24 -0500 Subject: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 on Adam Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Ian, > > You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. > > However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. > > First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. > > If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: > > 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) > > 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? > > 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. > > 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. > > > Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. > > If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. > > (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) > > Adam > > >> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >> >> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >> >> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >> >> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. >> >> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >> >> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >> >> >> >> >> From: Carolina Rossini >> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >> To: parminder >> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >> >> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >> :-) >> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >> hugs >> C >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Dear folks, >>> >>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >> >> Carolina >> >> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >> >> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >> >> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >> >> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >> >> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >> >> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> >>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>> >>> -- >>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Fri Jan 10 08:14:14 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:14:14 -0500 Subject: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I think Adam has framed his thinking process about all this rather well, and I find myself nodding my head in agreement at every point. ‹-Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews On 1/10/14, 3:48 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: >Hi Ian, > >You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more >difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their >specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious >to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) >in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day >meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out >the way) gives little time to achieve much. > >However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. > >First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements >from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first >heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an >opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so >I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. > >If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all >are working under, the general confusion: > >1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We >respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We >understand that they are under great time and no doubt political >pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: >people/time/experience, etc) > >2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point >of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who >are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? > >3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's >trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. >Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. > >4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the >meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather >than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select >and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS >fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at >other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to >need support, too much to do in too little time. > > >Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very >substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF >dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide >information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the >Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event >expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other >concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I >would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to >continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked >for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), >IANA/ICANN frameworks. > >If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later >find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an >indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. > >(writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed >not so coherent) > >Adam > > >On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be >>achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >> >> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely >>amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that >>the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >> >> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to >>provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >> >> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. >>Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains >>for concrete developments. >> >> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single >>step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >> >> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think >>that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things >>which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that >>it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >> >> >> >> >> From: Carolina Rossini >> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >> To: parminder >> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >> >> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of >>frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL >>we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we >>simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to >>channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I >>learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that >>Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I >>communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then >>folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the >>letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >> :-) >> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also >>can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would >>expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get >>more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. >>Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. >>When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting >>back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we >>stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I >>assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have >>any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >> hugs >> C >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder >>wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Dear folks, >>> >>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. >>>Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL >>>conversations with CGI. >> >> Carolina >> >> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. >>The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net >>filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a >>pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. >>That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we >>are fast getting there if not already there. >> >> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable >>to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >> >> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four >>prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed >>that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if >>this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter >>to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who >>were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the >>Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of >>the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >> >> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not >>keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that >>you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did >>you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in >>any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the >>Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas >>much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by >>the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out >>since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >> >> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been >>officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations >>with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to >>bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I >>think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But >>NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >> >> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and >>seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role >>that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an >>explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> >>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel >>>email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>> >>> -- >>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 08:14:13 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:44:13 +0530 Subject: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> The Brazilian organisers have our highest respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest broker, and with no axe to grind... This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part. Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others. What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by the general civil society membership around... This is too important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner it is being slipped in... parminder On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote: > +1 on Adam > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. >> >> However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. >> >> First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. >> >> If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: >> >> 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) >> >> 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? >> >> 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. >> >> 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. >> >> >> Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. >> >> If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. >> >> (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) >> >> Adam >> >> >>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >>> >>> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >>> >>> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >>> >>> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. >>> >>> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >>> >>> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Carolina Rossini >>> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >>> To: parminder >>> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >>> >>> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >>> :-) >>> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >>> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >>> hugs >>> C >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>> Dear folks, >>>> >>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>> Carolina >>> >>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>> >>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>> >>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>> >>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>> >>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>> >>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>> >>> Thanks, parminder >>> >>> >>> >>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carolina Rossini >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>> Open Technology Institute >>> New America Foundation >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jan 10 08:29:56 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:29:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, If 1Net is transparent in this process, just a coordinator and a space where stakeholders can discuss, while the important matters of content and themes, agenda, logistics, etc, are run through the committees established by the Brazilian organizing group, then I hope we will find the meeting in April is successful (as successful as it can be given the obvious constraints), and civil society will have contributed, been heard, been equally successful. To be honest I don't know what 1Net's role will be, seems to me that the Steering Committee is there to sort that out, with stakeholder agreement of course. I don't believe 1Net is a proxy for ICANN, they have clearly had a role in its creation and organization, but what we make of it from now seems up to us and the other stakeholders. I hope I am not wrong in this, if I am then in a few months we'll have seen a vary major failure in this multi-stakholder approach. I hope that doesn't happen. Adam On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:14 PM, parminder wrote: > The Brazilian organisers have our highest respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest broker, and with no axe to grind... > > This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part. > > Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others. > > What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by the general civil society membership around... This is too important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner it is being slipped in... > > parminder > > > On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote: >> +1 on Adam >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. >>> >>> However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. >>> >>> First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. >>> >>> If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: >>> >>> 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) >>> >>> 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? >>> >>> 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. >>> >>> 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. >>> >>> >>> Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. >>> >>> If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. >>> >>> (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >>>> >>>> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >>>> >>>> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >>>> >>>> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. >>>> >>>> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >>>> >>>> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Carolina Rossini >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >>>> To: parminder >>>> Cc: >>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >>>> >>>> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >>>> :-) >>>> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >>>> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >>>> hugs >>>> C >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear folks, >>>>> >>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>>> >>>> Carolina >>>> >>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>>> >>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>>> >>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>> >>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>>> >>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>> >>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carolina Rossini >>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>>> Open Technology Institute >>>> New America Foundation >>>> // >>>> >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jan 10 09:04:17 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:34:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CFFDE1.4080703@itforchange.net> Can someone tell me one reason why the LOG wants 1Net to relay the names of 3 stakeholder group nominees to them. Why cant they receive these names directly. CGI.Br has much more resources and manpower than CSTD and IGF, who, with very poor secretarial support, have done such a job of receiving nominees names and forming committees rather well. And from what I know 1Net really does not exist in any particular shape or body yet.... There is simply no logic here, other than that ICANN, with the 1Net front has been ramming its way into the Brazilian meeting organising space, and LOG has been giving way... Money, what I understand Fadi would basically be meeting LOG today about, may be a factor, and I simply do not like the role of money in public spaces shaping roles. But what is ICANN's reason? That s the question.... You want to make it more intriguing.... Though I dont have the time to keep repeating things which happened in plain sight, bec as they say you cannot wake up someone who isnt asleep... but , briefly 1. At the IGF 1Net was launched as a 'movement', and rather aggressively... They were trying to take so much control of the Brazil meeting that Brazilian gov reps were visibly embarrassed, and even upset.... 2. Sometime in Dec, 1Net coordinator announced that they will appoint/ coordinate the non gov stakeholder reps to the Brazilian committee 3. A meeting of the Brazilian organisers on 27th Dec (?) told them, and everyone else, no you would not do it, we will handle it ourselves (there are mails to the BB list in this regard, which i reposted 2 days back) 4. Early Jan another meeting of LOG tells us, well, we have changed our mind, and it is 1Net who will organise non gov relationships with LOG (Carolina in a recent email has descried it as 1Net filtering everything to 1Net) 5. so many CS persons get together and decided in Bali that, no, CS wont mediate its relationship through 1Net, but deal with Brazilians directly, and gave 4 Liaisons that specific role... Slowly that resolve disappears and the leadership who was supposed to assert this decision of the 4 CS networks, seem to be itself getting dissolving into 1Net, and so when the LOG turn around took place, no one was complaining. 6 Discussions are rife that 1Net will remain a standing platform for non gov stakeholders, beyond Brazil meeting, and keep engaging as one with global IG spaces... Everything that has been announced from 1Net side has come true. such is it its power, so, keep watching.... 7 ........... 8 .............. Many other events making a rather intriguing chain... And you want us to just be complacent, and trust everyone... When the UN but moves the slightest in its bed, we are ready to develop all kind of projections... So many are here already projecting what they are going to do in 2015, and what is needed to stop them... And with ICANN (how much is it the US establishment?) we should simply trust and wait, and things will turn up well... Sure. parminder On Friday 10 January 2014 06:59 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > If 1Net is transparent in this process, just a coordinator and a space where stakeholders can discuss, while the important matters of content and themes, agenda, logistics, etc, are run through the committees established by the Brazilian organizing group, then I hope we will find the meeting in April is successful (as successful as it can be given the obvious constraints), and civil society will have contributed, been heard, been equally successful. > > To be honest I don't know what 1Net's role will be, seems to me that the Steering Committee is there to sort that out, with stakeholder agreement of course. I don't believe 1Net is a proxy for ICANN, they have clearly had a role in its creation and organization, but what we make of it from now seems up to us and the other stakeholders. I hope I am not wrong in this, if I am then in a few months we'll have seen a vary major failure in this multi-stakholder approach. I hope that doesn't happen. > > Adam > > > > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:14 PM, parminder wrote: > >> The Brazilian organisers have our highest respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest broker, and with no axe to grind... >> >> This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part. >> >> Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others. >> >> What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by the general civil society membership around... This is too important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner it is being slipped in... >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote: >>> +1 on Adam >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ian, >>>> >>>> You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. >>>> >>>> However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. >>>> >>>> First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. >>>> >>>> If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: >>>> >>>> 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) >>>> >>>> 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? >>>> >>>> 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. >>>> >>>> 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. >>>> >>>> >>>> Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. >>>> >>>> If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. >>>> >>>> (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >>>>> >>>>> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >>>>> >>>>> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >>>>> >>>>> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. >>>>> >>>>> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >>>>> >>>>> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Carolina Rossini >>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >>>>> To: parminder >>>>> Cc: >>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >>>>> >>>>> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >>>>> :-) >>>>> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >>>>> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >>>>> hugs >>>>> C >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>>>> >>>>> Carolina >>>>> >>>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>>>> >>>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>>>> >>>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>>> >>>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>>>> >>>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>>> >>>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carolina Rossini >>>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>>>> Open Technology Institute >>>>> New America Foundation >>>>> // >>>>> >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>>> >>>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>>> skype: carolrossini >>>>> @carolinarossini >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 10 09:39:32 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:39:32 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5Bdiscuss=5D_=5Bgovernance=5D_Meet?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ing_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:18 pm, parminder wrote: > I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... Not tell us that well this is what has already happened and so.... But what is their preferences (and what was it at Bali, and if there is a change of view, some clarification will be extremely helpful). > > I also agree with Bill that we should stop causing confusion, and clearly arrive at a view and tell it to the outside world. Sorry for the apparent confusion. The process has certainly been made clear to Adiel, to the LOG, and we thought it has also been made clear to the respective lists, but evidently not. So let me restate my understanding of it: The 1net representatives are separate from the Brazil meeting representatives, because 1net aims to be an ongoing dialogue whereas the Brazil meeting is a discrete event. Following from point 1, it was never stated or anticipated that the 1net steering committee reps would themselves appoint the Brazil committee reps, and they were not selected in the expectation that do such a thing. Rather, the civil society IG coordination group has handled (or is handling) the process for nominations. (We do realise that Michael Gurstein is not happy about this, nor is he happy about 1net, or Best Bits, or....) As for the four liaisons that we appointed in Brazil, they took interim roles in liaising both with the 1net group and the Brazil organisers, but these interim appointments are superseded as more permanent appointments are made - initially of the new 1net steering committee representatives, and (pending) the representatives on the two Brazil committees. The fact that the LOG has asked that the nominations for the Brazil committees go through the 1net committee initially flummoxed us because it flew in the face of what we thought we had clearly told them about our process. But Ian's response is that we will send our selections directly to the LOG, and also (as a courtesy, if you like) to the 1net committee. Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry that it wasn't clear enough already. Parminder I realise that point 5 above is likely unsatisfactory to you because it doesn't firmly break the plank of legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but... it's intended as a bit of a compromise. Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is the chair of the coordination group. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Jan 10 09:40:06 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:40:06 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?=5B=5D_Meeting_in_S=C3=A3o_Paulo_on_Frid?= =?UTF-8?Q?ay=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D00646.4040803@acm.org> On 10-Jan-14 06:01, William Drake wrote: > > I am a IGC member and BB subscriber and I favor working through the 1net > SC as the Brazilians have asked. I agree. We can either spend the next few months arguing about how things should be done, or get to work on helping the meeting happen in a useful manner. I agree, we should comply with the organizational approach taken by those responsible for organizing the meeting. avri From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jan 6 23:50:17 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 15:50:17 +1100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> References: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Michael, I don’t think anyone is claiming to be civil society. We are simply co-ordinating a process involving major coalitions operating in this area (NCSG, Best Bits, Diplo, APC) working on behalf of the many organisations involved in a variety of networks to provide balanced representation from civil society. I am not aware of anyone else who is doing that, are you? Nor, by the way, am I aware of any process via which your slate of Community Informatics reps (from one aspect/grouping within civil society) can effectively be considered if you do not join in with your peers here in this process. Do you want 1net to make some decision to include CI reps and leave out more widely supported civil society reps? Firstly, I don’t think they will, and secondly, if they did, I would object strongly to someone outside of civil society making these choices instead of those inside. I would still urge you to join with the rest of us rather than setting up a divisive path which is not helpful to you or your organisation. Ian Peter From: michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 2:06 PM To: 'Ian Peter' ; 'Carolina Rossini' ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Ian, I must object to your according to yourself and your grouping the mantle of “Civil Society”. Your group represents certain elements/organizations within Civil Society but there are many many other organizations and individuals who are not represented and perhaps don’t wish to be represented by your specific grouping. I would ask in further communications, which in principle are open to all, that this distinction be recognized and maintained. With best wishes, M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 3:43 AM To: Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jan 10 09:47:18 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 23:47:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52CFFDE1.4080703@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <52CFF225.6090808@itforchange.net> <52CFFDE1.4080703@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, On Jan 10, 2014, at 11:04 PM, parminder wrote: > Can someone tell me one reason why the LOG wants 1Net to relay the names of 3 stakeholder group nominees to them. Why cant they receive these names directly. I think the only people who can answer are members the Brazilian committee. Perhaps you and I should try to find out from them. I'll send email and cc you. Hope that's OK. > CGI.Br has much more resources and manpower than CSTD and IGF, who, with very poor secretarial support, have done such a job of receiving nominees names and forming committees rather well. Having been involved with the IGF as a MAG member and then on an occasional basis with the IGF secretariat, I'm not so sure. We are still waiting for the IGF Secretariat to respond about the MAG renewal -- if the Brazilians were as slow (with no disrespect to my friend Chengetai) then we might have the committees formed shortly after the meeting was held :-) Seriously, I don't know what resources CGI.br has at its disposal, but the addition of an international high-level meeting, political, at such short notice, on top of other ongoing tasks (they have a "day job") will be a very significant challenge. They have enough to do. Let's try to help them. (BTW, I have no contract with the IGF Secretariat now, and at present do not expect to work with them this year's IGF.) > And from what I know 1Net really does not exist in any particular shape or body yet.... It seems to be gaining shape right now. The steering committee is near complete, and they should be giving shape to the "platform" or whatever it will be. I don't expect the steering committee to act on major issues without consultation and wider agreement of stakeholders. The committee's charter's being drafted now, so we'll soon see, and be able to comment. > There is simply no logic here, other than that ICANN, with the 1Net front has been ramming its way into the Brazilian meeting organising space, and LOG has been giving way... Money, what I understand Fadi would basically be meeting LOG today about, may be a factor, and I simply do not like the role of money in public spaces shaping roles. But what is ICANN's reason? That s the question.... > > You want to make it more intriguing.... Though I dont have the time to keep repeating things which happened in plain sight, bec as they say you cannot wake up someone who isnt asleep... Lights are on but there's nobody home? Funny... > but , briefly > About the intrigue you see, I just don't see it that darkly. But as indicated in my last email, if I'm wrong and this proves to be the unrepresentative fix you're suggesting, then harm will have been done to the notion of the multi-stakeholder approach. So I hope I'm right. Adam > 1. At the IGF 1Net was launched as a 'movement', and rather aggressively... They were trying to take so much control of the Brazil meeting that Brazilian gov reps were visibly embarrassed, and even upset.... > > 2. Sometime in Dec, 1Net coordinator announced that they will appoint/ coordinate the non gov stakeholder reps to the Brazilian committee > > 3. A meeting of the Brazilian organisers on 27th Dec (?) told them, and everyone else, no you would not do it, we will handle it ourselves (there are mails to the BB list in this regard, which i reposted 2 days back) > > 4. Early Jan another meeting of LOG tells us, well, we have changed our mind, and it is 1Net who will organise non gov relationships with LOG (Carolina in a recent email has descried it as 1Net filtering everything to 1Net) > > 5. so many CS persons get together and decided in Bali that, no, CS wont mediate its relationship through 1Net, but deal with Brazilians directly, and gave 4 Liaisons that specific role... Slowly that resolve disappears and the leadership who was supposed to assert this decision of the 4 CS networks, seem to be itself getting dissolving into 1Net, and so when the LOG turn around took place, no one was complaining. > > 6 Discussions are rife that 1Net will remain a standing platform for non gov stakeholders, beyond Brazil meeting, and keep engaging as one with global IG spaces... Everything that has been announced from 1Net side has come true. such is it its power, so, keep watching.... > > 7 ........... > > 8 .............. > > Many other events making a rather intriguing chain... And you want us to just be complacent, and trust everyone... > > When the UN but moves the slightest in its bed, we are ready to develop all kind of projections... So many are here already projecting what they are going to do in 2015, and what is needed to stop them... And with ICANN (how much is it the US establishment?) we should simply trust and wait, and things will turn up well... Sure. > > parminder > > > On Friday 10 January 2014 06:59 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> If 1Net is transparent in this process, just a coordinator and a space where stakeholders can discuss, while the important matters of content and themes, agenda, logistics, etc, are run through the committees established by the Brazilian organizing group, then I hope we will find the meeting in April is successful (as successful as it can be given the obvious constraints), and civil society will have contributed, been heard, been equally successful. >> >> To be honest I don't know what 1Net's role will be, seems to me that the Steering Committee is there to sort that out, with stakeholder agreement of course. I don't believe 1Net is a proxy for ICANN, they have clearly had a role in its creation and organization, but what we make of it from now seems up to us and the other stakeholders. I hope I am not wrong in this, if I am then in a few months we'll have seen a vary major failure in this multi-stakholder approach. I hope that doesn't happen. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:14 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> The Brazilian organisers have our highest respect... This is why there has been so much expectant buzz when Brazil took this initiative... People see them as an honest broker, and with no axe to grind... >>> >>> This is more than what can be said about ICANN.. not the honesty part, but the 'axe to grind' part. >>> >>> Of course ICANN is welcome to be an important part/ constituent of the meeting, but as one among the others. >>> >>> What is not acceptable is for the civil society to have to organise under ICANN's umbrella. And the plans for this are not just for the Brazil meeting, but as a standing arrangement for the global IG space. This changes the nature of civil society in the IG space. This needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed to by the general civil society membership around... This is too important a shift, to be slipped in surreptitiously, in the manner it is being slipped in... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 10 January 2014 06:23 PM, Carolina wrote: >>> >>>> +1 on Adam >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:48 AM, Adam Peake >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ian, >>>>> >>>>> You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. >>>>> >>>>> However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. >>>>> >>>>> First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. >>>>> >>>>> If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) >>>>> >>>>> 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? >>>>> >>>>> 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. >>>>> >>>>> 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. >>>>> >>>>> If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. >>>>> >>>>> (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Jan 10 11:21:17 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:51:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Following up on my message below, in the end, the LOC decided that today's meeting would only be open to the LOC. According to communication by Hartmut, this was to avoid unbalanced representation, as the technical community has not yet appointed its representatives (see the message below my email). In that sense, my request to Adiel to facilitate the participation of the liaisons in the meeting became irrelevant. However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, he encouraged us to take up this issue, too, directly with the LOC. He also noted, "At this point I can not allow myself to talk FOR CS only wile interacting with the LOC". This needs to be read in the light of his efforts to make possible the participation of the 1net steering group members in that meeting, something that was of importance for all those who do feel comfortable with 1net being the conduit for their participation. Best regards, Anja Begin forwarded message: Dear All, Because of confusion and/or misunderstandings if the 1Net Steering Committee already is in place, and to avoid unbalanced participation (only one or two communities), we decided that the meeting tomorrow (Friday January 10th) will be only *a meeting of the Local Organizing Working Group (Members of CGI.br )*. I expect that all BR Meeting Committees will be in place during next week and then we can start to work with high speed. All the best Hartmu On 9 January 2014 08:31, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a member of > the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the participation in > person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on 10 Jan. Joana and Laura > are the liaisons who had indicated they could make it in person. > > Will let you know as soon as there is a response. > > Best, > Anja > On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > >> Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. >> >> JC >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe >> >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : >> >> Hi Jean- Christophe, >> >> One correction to your excellent summary >> >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> >> The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering Committee – a >> different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja >> Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon ) >> >> The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up about 2 days >> ago with the reps chosen by various constituencies but as the technical >> community reps have not been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a >> longer term brief than the Brazil meeting. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM >> *To:* Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil >> Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; >> igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >> >> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good >> reasons for the mess (not always but...). >> >> A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand >> it now, its title might be: >> *ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG* >> >> *So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my >> information to the listings)* >> >> When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the >> purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are >> available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious >> issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, >> and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release >> dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In >> the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The >> last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. >> In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. >> >> This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil >> lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level >> of concern? >> >> From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. >> >> *Who are the Organizers?* >> Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* >> (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... >> >> *Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet >> Conference?* >> One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 >> additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? >> >> *Who are the Representatives of the Organizers?* >> Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "*Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee*". This committee is not per say Brazilian >> as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should >> be a *US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee*, or an *ICANN and BRAZIL >> Internet Steering Committee*. >> >> For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he >> is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the >> meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It >> seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND >> the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see >> below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". >> >> *Who are the Representatives for all IG >> participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the >> multistakeholder story)?* >> After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC >> (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a >> "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, >> too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a >> multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when >> this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, >> no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) >> is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the >> current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it >> was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to >> endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. >> Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF >> delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the >> multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for >> participation. >> >> *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers >> will be able to share a feeling of participation. >> >> *Who are the other governments participating?* >> No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low >> 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as >> most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through >> the I*. >> >> *Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI >> SC)?* >> - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. >> - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br >> - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the >> umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). >> - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America >> Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana >> and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) >> - ICANN representatives? >> - Others? >> ... >> (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first >> BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting >> website) >> >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering >> committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, >> Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel >> but we haven't seen his answer yet. >> - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in >> the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette >> Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already >> in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal >> feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed >> something here) >> - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil >> society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) >> * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member >> at the BI SC. >> >> *Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare >> the event under the BI SC overview?* >> This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite >> clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement >> with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). >> The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection >> committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected >> will be sent to the BI SC for approval. >> For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL >> and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. >> We don not know about other names. >> >> >> *Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting?* >> LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering >> committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments >> representatives are expected. >> The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the >> meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for >> the event. >> Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include >> other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting >> Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 >> civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 >> meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) >> >> Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill >> ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all >> circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views >> ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants >> * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the >> mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not >> too demanding. >> >> The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 >> committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) >> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> individual civil society organisation(s) >> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >> multistakeholder setting >> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report >> back as the process progresses >> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >> discussions >> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of >> civil society perspectives on these issues >> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> >> I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of >> information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute >> to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. >> >> Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time >> on this. >> >> Thanks in advance >> JC >> >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> @jc_nothias >> >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> Dear folks, >> >> >> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. >> Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL >> conversations with CGI. >> >> >> Carolina >> >> >> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The >> point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering >> all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover >> (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be >> such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting >> there if not already there. >> >> >> >> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. >> >> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net >> discuss list: >> >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> >> >> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps >> can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the >> LOC. >> >> >> - a. >> >> >> >> >> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to >> have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of >> committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering >> committee members: >> >> Rafik Dammak >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Anja Kovacs >> Vladimir Radunovik >> Joana Varon >> >> Marilia Maciel as back-up. >> >> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But >> there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. >> And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short >> notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. >> Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? >> >> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to >> be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good >> process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering >> to help. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable >> to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >> >> >> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four >> prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, >> no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is >> *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to >> Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were >> requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil >> meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter >> got highly delayed even after this decision.) >> >> >> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep >> us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be >> invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not >> share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case >> the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep >> CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened >> since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. >> Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a >> member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >> >> >> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been >> officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with >> CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to >> speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked >> for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to >> any of our requests.... >> >> >> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and >> seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role >> that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an >> explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >> >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> >> >> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel >> email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >> >> >> -- >> >> Carol (in my personal capacity) >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as 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 >> > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 11:51:32 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:21:32 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <52D02514.70902@itforchange.net> >> Dear All, >> >> Because of confusion and/or misunderstandings if the 1Net Steering >> Committee already is in place, and >> to avoid unbalanced participation (only one or two communities), we >> decided that the meeting tomorrow >> (Friday January 10th) will be only_*a meeting of the Local Organizing >> Working Group (Members ofCGI.br )*_. >> >> I expect that all BR Meeting Committees will be in place during next >> week and then we can start to work with >> high speed. >> >> All the best >> >> Hartmut I am a bit unclear about Hartmut's email.... Why was 1Net's steering committee being earlier considered as 'the' manner of stakeholder participation in LOG meeting? (I think this may been considered as an interim measure, which was rightly decided now to be erroneous.) Is 1Net steering committee not there to mind 1Net's business, whatever it is? What business has it with LOG or the Brazilian meeting? Or, I can understand it another way... That they decided now to - rightly - just keep 1Net out and wait for the 2 or 3 (or 4) Brazilian Meeting Organising Committees to get formed and go through that formal and legitimate process. I welcome this decision and congratulate LOG for it. Thanks a lot.. parminder > > > > > > On 9 January 2014 08:31, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a > member of the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the > participation in person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on > 10 Jan. Joana and Laura are the liaisons who had indicated they > could make it in person. > > Will let you know as soon as there is a response. > > Best, > Anja > > On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal" > wrote: > > Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. > > JC > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : > >> Hi Jean- Christophe, >> One correction to your excellent summary >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering >> Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; >> Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana >> Varon ) >> The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up >> about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various >> constituencies but as the technical community reps have not >> been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term >> brief than the Brazil meeting. >> Ian Peter >> *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM >> *To:* Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br >> >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society >> Internet Governance Caucus - IGC >> ; >> igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some >> good reasons for the mess (not always but...). >> A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can >> understand it now, its title might be: >> *ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG* >> * >> * >> *So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for >> editing my information to the listings)* >> When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set >> for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br >> ), only minor informations are >> available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference >> and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for >> the location of the venue, and its address. In the >> 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, >> 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In >> the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with >> 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 >> hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you >> click to pop up an email. >> This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new >> website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this >> website to the appropriate level of concern? >> From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. >> *Who are the Organizers?* >> Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the >> other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, >> IETF, RIRs... >> *Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on >> Internet Conference?* >> One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN >> and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? >> *Who are the Representatives of the Organizers?* >> Officially the one entity which role is to organize the >> meeting is a "/Brazilian Internet Steering Committee/". This >> committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN >> representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a >> /US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee/, or an /ICANN and >> BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee/. >> For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. >> Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN >> delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is >> also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this >> secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND >> the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the >> committees (see below). We have no specific information about >> the "shared secretariat". >> *Who are the Representatives for all IG >> participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember >> the multistakeholder story)?* >> After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI >> SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many >> stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little >> time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a >> multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, >> specially when this filter has no existence, no >> constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no >> proper information flow. What we know about this filter >> (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly >> constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US >> role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not >> endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a >> private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. >> Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an >> IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare >> the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system >> of call for participation. >> *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be >> allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of >> participation. >> *Who are the other governments participating?* >> No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at >> a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will >> not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT >> 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. >> *Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee (BI SC)?* >> - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. >> - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br >> - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) >> under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). >> - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New >> America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio >> Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net >> steering committee or 1net steercom) >> - ICANN representatives? >> - Others? >> ... >> (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of >> the first BI SC, and no official information is available >> online on the brmeeting website) >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net >> steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names >> of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his >> answer yet. >> - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to >> participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee >> (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir >> Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With >> a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from >> them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed >> something here) >> - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another >> civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) >> * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison >> and a member at the BI SC. >> *Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed >> to prepare the event under the BI SC overview?* >> This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing >> them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will >> finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL >> and ICANN). >> The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc >> selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The >> final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. >> For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the >> organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the >> names. >> We don not know about other names. >> *Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan >> 10 meeting?* >> LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by >> 1net steering committee. Brazilian government >> representative(s). No other governments representatives are >> expected. >> The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told >> that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote >> participation issue for the event. >> Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI >> SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this >> meeting >> Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to >> include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC >> be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) >> Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of >> goodwill >> ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and >> in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views >> ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other >> participants >> * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all >> the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. >> And therefore not too demanding. >> The original criteria listing for selecting participants to >> the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) >> 1.Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> individual civil society organisation(s) >> 2.Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in >> a multistakeholder setting >> 3.Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >> report back as the process progresses >> 4.Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in >> these discussions >> 5.Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >> of civil society perspectives on these issues >> 6.Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, >> complement of information, or new information be pushed >> forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about >> the process and help overall understanding. >> Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks >> for your time on this. >> >> Thanks in advance >> JC >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> >> @jc_nothias >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : >> >>> >>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> Dear folks, >>>>> >>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on >>>>> January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional >>>>> entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>> >>>> Carolina >>>> >>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is >>>> interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this >>>> arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with >>>> CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for >>>> the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be >>>> such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we >>>> are fast getting there if not already there. >>>> >>> >>> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. >>> >>> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from >>> the 1Net discuss list: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >>>> >>>>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net >>>>> steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, >>>>> awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>>>> >>>>> - a. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his >>> request to have steering committee members attend. I am >>> beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but >>> believe we have selected five steering committee members: >>> >>> Rafik Dammak >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Anja Kovacs >>> Vladimir Radunovik >>> Joana Varon >>> >>> Marilia Maciel as back-up. >>> >>> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in >>> person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the >>> committee at least has a list. And if some of the other >>> Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, >>> suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as >>> proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members >>> could make this request? >>> >>> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when >>> meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always >>> mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we >>> have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is >>>> not acceptable to us? I request that list members give >>>> their response to this. >>>> >>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and >>>> four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) >>>> together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable >>>> to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people >>>> thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to >>>> Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS >>>> Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings >>>> related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite >>>> inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter >>>> got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>> >>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why >>>> did you not keep us posted about what was happening in >>>> Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all >>>> meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not >>>> share their response with all of us? Why when, while such >>>> is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly >>>> said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about >>>> developments. However, whereas much has happened since that >>>> time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to >>>> us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since >>>> he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three >>>> of you? >>>> >>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that >>>> it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say >>>> 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to >>>> this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about >>>> what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) >>>> asked for some information about what was happening. But >>>> NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>> >>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public >>>> duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear >>>> abdication of the role that you all were given as CS >>>> reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this >>>> somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here >>>>> is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as 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 > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 11:57:18 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:27:18 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > Following up on my message below, in the end, the LOC decided that > today's meeting would only be open to the LOC. According to > communication by Hartmut, this was to avoid unbalanced representation, > as the technical community has not yet appointed its representatives > (see the message below my email). > > In that sense, my request to Adiel to facilitate the participation of > the liaisons in the meeting became irrelevant. I dont see why Adiel is being appealed to for facilitating civil society participation in LOG meeting when a decision was taken at Bali that we wont use 1Net as our conduit to LOG.... I am happy Adiel responded as did below... > However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only > one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie > the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing > directly with the LOC, Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate our participation when we expressly decided against it.. > he encouraged us to take up this issue, too, directly with the LOC. He > also noted, "At this point I can not allow myself to talk FOR CS only > wile interacting with the LOC". This needs to be read in the light of > his efforts to make possible the participation of the 1net steering > group members in that meeting, Now this is interesting... I know that all stakeholders will participate in organising committees as nominated through their respective processes... What is this about 1Net participating in LOG meeting. what is the basis for that... parminder > something that was of importance for all those who do feel comfortable > with 1net being the conduit for their participation. > > Best regards, > Anja > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> Dear All, >> >> Because of confusion and/or misunderstandings if the 1Net Steering >> Committee already is in place, and >> to avoid unbalanced participation (only one or two communities), we >> decided that the meeting tomorrow >> (Friday January 10th) will be only_*a meeting of the Local Organizing >> Working Group (Members ofCGI.br )*_. >> >> I expect that all BR Meeting Committees will be in place during next >> week and then we can start to work with >> high speed. >> >> All the best >> >> Hartmu > > > > > > On 9 January 2014 08:31, Anja Kovacs > wrote: > > Dear all, > > Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a > member of the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the > participation in person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on > 10 Jan. Joana and Laura are the liaisons who had indicated they > could make it in person. > > Will let you know as soon as there is a response. > > Best, > Anja > > On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal" > wrote: > > Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. > > JC > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : > >> Hi Jean- Christophe, >> One correction to your excellent summary >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering >> Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; >> Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana >> Varon ) >> The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up >> about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various >> constituencies but as the technical community reps have not >> been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term >> brief than the Brazil meeting. >> Ian Peter >> *From:* Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM >> *To:* Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br >> >> *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society >> Internet Governance Caucus - IGC >> ; >> igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some >> good reasons for the mess (not always but...). >> A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can >> understand it now, its title might be: >> *ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG* >> * >> * >> *So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for >> editing my information to the listings)* >> When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set >> for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br >> ), only minor informations are >> available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference >> and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for >> the location of the venue, and its address. In the >> 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, >> 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In >> the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with >> 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 >> hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you >> click to pop up an email. >> This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new >> website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this >> website to the appropriate level of concern? >> From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. >> *Who are the Organizers?* >> Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the >> other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, >> IETF, RIRs... >> *Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on >> Internet Conference?* >> One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN >> and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? >> *Who are the Representatives of the Organizers?* >> Officially the one entity which role is to organize the >> meeting is a "/Brazilian Internet Steering Committee/". This >> committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN >> representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a >> /US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee/, or an /ICANN and >> BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee/. >> For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. >> Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN >> delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is >> also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this >> secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND >> the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the >> committees (see below). We have no specific information about >> the "shared secretariat". >> *Who are the Representatives for all IG >> participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember >> the multistakeholder story)?* >> After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI >> SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many >> stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little >> time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a >> multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, >> specially when this filter has no existence, no >> constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no >> proper information flow. What we know about this filter >> (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly >> constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US >> role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not >> endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a >> private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. >> Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an >> IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare >> the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system >> of call for participation. >> *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be >> allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of >> participation. >> *Who are the other governments participating?* >> No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at >> a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will >> not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT >> 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. >> *Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee (BI SC)?* >> - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. >> - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br >> - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) >> under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). >> - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New >> America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio >> Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net >> steering committee or 1net steercom) >> - ICANN representatives? >> - Others? >> ... >> (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of >> the first BI SC, and no official information is available >> online on the brmeeting website) >> *Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)* >> - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net >> steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names >> of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his >> answer yet. >> - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to >> participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee >> (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir >> Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With >> a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from >> them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed >> something here) >> - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another >> civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) >> * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison >> and a member at the BI SC. >> *Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed >> to prepare the event under the BI SC overview?* >> This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing >> them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will >> finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL >> and ICANN). >> The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc >> selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The >> final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. >> For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the >> organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the >> names. >> We don not know about other names. >> *Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan >> 10 meeting?* >> LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by >> 1net steering committee. Brazilian government >> representative(s). No other governments representatives are >> expected. >> The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told >> that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote >> participation issue for the event. >> Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI >> SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this >> meeting >> Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to >> include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC >> be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) >> Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of >> goodwill >> ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and >> in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views >> ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other >> participants >> * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all >> the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. >> And therefore not too demanding. >> The original criteria listing for selecting participants to >> the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) >> 1.Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> individual civil society organisation(s) >> 2.Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in >> a multistakeholder setting >> 3.Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >> report back as the process progresses >> 4.Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in >> these discussions >> 5.Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >> of civil society perspectives on these issues >> 6.Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, >> complement of information, or new information be pushed >> forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about >> the process and help overall understanding. >> Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks >> for your time on this. >> >> Thanks in advance >> JC >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> >> @jc_nothias >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : >> >>> >>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> Dear folks, >>>>> >>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on >>>>> January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional >>>>> entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>> >>>> Carolina >>>> >>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is >>>> interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this >>>> arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with >>>> CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for >>>> the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be >>>> such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we >>>> are fast getting there if not already there. >>>> >>> >>> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. >>> >>> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from >>> the 1Net discuss list: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >>>> >>>>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net >>>>> steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, >>>>> awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>>>> >>>>> - a. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his >>> request to have steering committee members attend. I am >>> beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but >>> believe we have selected five steering committee members: >>> >>> Rafik Dammak >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Anja Kovacs >>> Vladimir Radunovik >>> Joana Varon >>> >>> Marilia Maciel as back-up. >>> >>> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in >>> person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the >>> committee at least has a list. And if some of the other >>> Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, >>> suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as >>> proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members >>> could make this request? >>> >>> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when >>> meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always >>> mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we >>> have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is >>>> not acceptable to us? I request that list members give >>>> their response to this. >>>> >>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and >>>> four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) >>>> together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable >>>> to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people >>>> thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to >>>> Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS >>>> Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings >>>> related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite >>>> inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter >>>> got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>> >>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why >>>> did you not keep us posted about what was happening in >>>> Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all >>>> meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not >>>> share their response with all of us? Why when, while such >>>> is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly >>>> said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about >>>> developments. However, whereas much has happened since that >>>> time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to >>>> us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since >>>> he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three >>>> of you? >>>> >>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that >>>> it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say >>>> 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to >>>> this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about >>>> what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) >>>> asked for some information about what was happening. But >>>> NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>> >>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public >>>> duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear >>>> abdication of the role that you all were given as CS >>>> reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this >>>> somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>> >>>> Thanks, parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here >>>>> is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as 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 > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Jan 10 12:06:37 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:36:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5Bdiscuss=5D_=5Bgovernance=5D_Meet?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ing_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, As I agree that the exact relation between 1net and the organisation of the Brazilian meeting remains a topic of considerable confusion (including on the 1net email lists), I have requested that the 1net steering committee seeks clarification from the LOC on what its expectations vis-a-vis 1net are once the Committees are in place. If the LOC has no further expectations at that point, and if the 1net steering committee also sees no role for itself, the current tension will automatically defuse, as 1net would then automatically move into the background, at least where the organisational aspects of the meeting are concerned (it would hopefully still contribute to the substance!). The committee appointments should be known in about 5 days time. If the LOC does have further expectations, I think that time would be a good moment to more formally reassess our stance - through whatever process deemed most appropriate. Whatever happens, if at some point it is decided that working through the 1net SC is acceptable on some issues in the preparation for this event, I disagree that that means 1net will automatically become the default platform for all CS representation in the future, as some seem to fear. The exact shape that 1net will take is something that is still to be determined, and it is up to all of us to provide input into that - and up to us as 1net SC members from CS to make sure that you all remain informed of any relevant proposals etc. so that we can collectively frame timely responses as needed. FYI, the archives of the 1net SC mailing list are public, and can be accessed here: http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/steercom/ Best, Anja On 10 January 2014 20:09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:18 pm, parminder wrote: > > I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... Not tell us that > well this is what has already happened and so.... But what is their > preferences (and what was it at Bali, and if there is a change of view, > some clarification will be extremely helpful). > > I also agree with Bill that we should stop causing confusion, and clearly > arrive at a view and tell it to the outside world. > > > Sorry for the apparent confusion. The process has certainly been made > clear to Adiel, to the LOG, and we thought it has also been made clear to > the respective lists, but evidently not. So let me restate my > understanding of it: > > > - The 1net representatives are separate from the Brazil meeting > representatives, because 1net aims to be an ongoing dialogue whereas the > Brazil meeting is a discrete event. > - Following from point 1, it was never stated or anticipated that the > 1net steering committee reps would themselves appoint the Brazil committee > reps, and they were not selected in the expectation that do such a thing. > - Rather, the civil society IG coordination group has handled (or is > handling) the process for nominations. (We do realise that Michael > Gurstein is not happy about this, nor is he happy about 1net, or Best Bits, > or....) > - As for the four liaisons that we appointed in Brazil, they took > *interim* roles in liaising both with the 1net group and the Brazil > organisers, but these interim appointments are superseded as more permanent > appointments are made - initially of the new 1net steering committee > representatives, and (pending) the representatives on the two Brazil > committees. > - The fact that the LOG has asked that the nominations for the Brazil > committees go through the 1net committee initially flummoxed us because it > flew in the face of what we thought we had clearly told them about our > process. But Ian's response is that we will send our selections directly > to the LOG, and also (as a courtesy, if you like) to the 1net committee. > > > Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry that it wasn't clear > enough already. Parminder I realise that point 5 above is likely > unsatisfactory to you because it doesn't firmly break the plank of > legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but... it's intended as a bit > of a compromise. > > Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is the chair of the > coordination group. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 10 12:21:48 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 22:51:48 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5Bdiscuss=5D_=5Bgovernance=5D_Meet?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ing_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52D02C2C.401@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 January 2014 10:36 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear all, > > As I agree that the exact relation between 1net and the organisation > of the Brazilian meeting remains a topic of considerable confusion > (including on the 1net email lists), I have requested that the 1net > steering committee seeks clarification from the LOC on what its > expectations vis-a-vis 1net are once the Committees are in place. If > the LOC has no further expectations at that point, and if the 1net > steering committee also sees no role for itself, the current tension > will automatically defuse, as 1net would then automatically move into > the background, at least where the organisational aspects of the > meeting are concerned (it would hopefully still contribute to the > substance!). The committee appointments should be known in about 5 > days time. > > If the LOC does have further expectations, I think that time would be > a good moment to more formally reassess our stance - through whatever > process deemed most appropriate. Anja I am sure you have followed the facts of the case whereby it has not been what LOG expected of 1Net, but what 1Net, or whoever drives 1Net, has consistently and insistently tried to extract from LOG... you know that 1Net begun even in Bali to assume roles about the Brazil meeting which made Brazilians extremely uncomfortable, and that then in Dec Adiel made the unilateral declaration that 1Net will be the conduit to Brazil organising committees, whereby later on 27th dec LOG pushed 1Net back and announced more or less that Adiel's announcement was wrong and unauthorised and that LOG will directly deal with different stakeholder processes... whatever happened between that meeting and the latest LOG meeting in the first week of Jan, but then 1Net was again the one conduit... Why do you think we should ignore all this publicly known stuff and innocently assume that it is LOG which is pressuring poor 1Net into different roles. This is pretty strange to me... parminder > > Whatever happens, if at some point it is decided that working through > the 1net SC is acceptable on some issues in the preparation for this > event, I disagree that that means 1net will automatically become the > default platform for all CS representation in the future, as some seem > to fear. The exact shape that 1net will take is something that is > still to be determined, and it is up to all of us to provide input > into that - and up to us as 1net SC members from CS to make sure that > you all remain informed of any relevant proposals etc. so that we can > collectively frame timely responses as needed. > > FYI, the archives of the 1net SC mailing list are public, and can be > accessed here: http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/steercom/ > > Best, > Anja > > > > > > On 10 January 2014 20:09, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:18 pm, parminder > wrote: > >> I just want others to tell their clear views as well.... Not tell >> us that well this is what has already happened and so.... But >> what is their preferences (and what was it at Bali, and if there >> is a change of view, some clarification will be extremely helpful). >> >> I also agree with Bill that we should stop causing confusion, and >> clearly arrive at a view and tell it to the outside world. > > Sorry for the apparent confusion. The process has certainly been > made clear to Adiel, to the LOG, and we thought it has also been > made clear to the respective lists, but evidently not. So let me > restate my understanding of it: > > * The 1net representatives are separate from the Brazil meeting > representatives, because 1net aims to be an ongoing dialogue > whereas the Brazil meeting is a discrete event. > * Following from point 1, it was never stated or anticipated > that the 1net steering committee reps would themselves appoint > the Brazil committee reps, and they were not selected in the > expectation that do such a thing. > * Rather, the civil society IG coordination group has handled > (or is handling) the process for nominations. (We do realise > that Michael Gurstein is not happy about this, nor is he happy > about 1net, or Best Bits, or....) > * As for the four liaisons that we appointed in Brazil, they > took /interim/ roles in liaising both with the 1net group and > the Brazil organisers, but these interim appointments are > superseded as more permanent appointments are made - initially > of the new 1net steering committee representatives, and > (pending) the representatives on the two Brazil committees. > * The fact that the LOG has asked that the nominations for the > Brazil committees go through the 1net committee initially > flummoxed us because it flew in the face of what we thought we > had clearly told them about our process. But Ian's response > is that we will send our selections directly to the LOG, and > also (as a courtesy, if you like) to the 1net committee. > > > Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry that it wasn't > clear enough already. Parminder I realise that point 5 above is > likely unsatisfactory to you because it doesn't firmly break the > plank of legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but... it's > intended as a bit of a compromise. > > Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is the chair of the > coordination group. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jan 10 17:46:34 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 05:46:34 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5Bdiscuss=5D_=5Bgovernance=5D_Meet?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ing_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> <52CFCBFA.3090407@itforchange.net> <8A21D2B4-1A53-4273-9F7E-1A347D5AC374@gmail.com> <52CFD713.1040107@itforchange.net> <236C679B-D614-4FDB-9283-EDA21D2BBEFA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <052c01cf0e55$d2ecb150$78c613f0$@gmail.com> Hmmm From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 9:40 PM To: parminder Cc: William Drake; Joana Varon; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Meeting in São Paulo on Friday, January 10th, is between the LOG and 1Net [MG>] snip Well lack of transparency, lack of processes for legitimate accountability, self and insider dealing, self-interested processes of exclusion, delegitimizing and marginalizing of critical or alternative perspectives, i.e. an overall illegitimacy of process and outcome are what they are and so far no one has either disputed or responded to my calling various of the self-appointed “Coordinators, Steering committee members, Facilitators etc.etc.” out on these “bad behaviours” * Rather, the civil society IG coordination group has handled (or is handling) the process for nominations. (We do realise that Michael Gurstein is not happy about this, nor is he happy about 1net, or Best Bits, or....) [MG>] My problem/”unhappiness” results from the fact that I would very much like to see the Brazil process succeed I think the Internet and all of it’s users (and non-users) would benefit from such a “success” but I’m having considerable difficulty in seeing how outcomes contributory to the general good can emerge from input processes such as these. M Hopefully this clarifies the process, and sorry that it wasn't clear enough already. Parminder I realise that point 5 above is likely unsatisfactory to you because it doesn't firmly break the plank of legitimacy that the LOG has extended to 1net, but... it's intended as a bit of a compromise. Ian can clarify further if needs be, since he is the chair of the coordination group. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Jan 11 00:13:53 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:13:53 +1100 Subject: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Some more developments - http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 7:48 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: Carolina Rossini ; parminder ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel Hi Ian, You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) Adam On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved > with the Brazil meeting now. > > From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious > given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of > anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. > > However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to > provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. > > Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very > little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for > concrete developments. > > But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. > Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. > > So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think > that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things > which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it > is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. > > > > > From: Carolina Rossini > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM > To: parminder > Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel > > No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration > going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have > learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did > not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel > communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned > that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was > going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and > then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi > is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to > Fadi). > :-) > So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also > can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. > We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more > involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some > folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the > 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to > the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped > that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. > So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I > assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. > But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. > hugs > C > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder > wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> Dear folks, >> >> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks >> in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations >> with CGI. > > Carolina > > Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The > point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering > all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover > (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be > such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast > getting there if not already there. > > Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to > us? I request that list members give their response to this. > > That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent > civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this > arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* > what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians > to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested > to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. > (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got > highly delayed even after this decision.) > > Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep > us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be > invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not > share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case > the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will > keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has > happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the > liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he > was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? > > When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been > officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations > with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring > us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think > Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of > you responded to any of our requests.... > > I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking > accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you > all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of > this somewhere, in which case please do share it. > > Thanks, parminder > > > >> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email >> if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >> >> -- >> Carol (in my personal capacity) >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 11 00:19:02 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:49:02 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D0D354.9090209@itforchange.net> References: <52D0D354.9090209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D0D446.3070708@itforchange.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:45:00 +0530 From: parminder To: discuss at 1net.org On Saturday 11 January 2014 09:49 AM, John Curran wrote: > 1net Participants - > > There appears to be an updated announcement regarding the Brazil meeting - > http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html from the announcement. "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net." So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and it is upto its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most respectfully, but can we at least now shed this fiction... But of course I will be told now - what can 1Net do if the Brazilians are intent on thrusting this momentous role on 1Net? Of course 1Net did not ask for this role, for there is no 1Net. But then are we allowed to make guesses who did, nay insisted, nay extracted it. Why dont we just play open and fair... Everyone has the right to put their views out forcefully, to make alliances with whoever they can, but this is not that... This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting. So, civil society is told, no... your views do not count... And a non existent 1Net is told, well, you take over.... One is really disappointed. This was not what President Rousseff started with. We were trying to make a new start. Seek new directions on where global Internet should go... parminder > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jan 11 02:12:35 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:12:35 +0900 Subject: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <94953200-7477-483F-8F8F-0D7302DC3BF5@glocom.ac.jp> On Jan 11, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Some more developments - > > http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html > > Thanks Ian. Back to the general subject of this thread, the key part of the announcement: "The official website for the meeting will be launched on January 27th 2014. The website will enable the global community to provide contributions for the substantive agenda of the meeting, which consists of the following two specific topics: Internet governance principles; Roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. The roadmap should address the desirable properties for globally effective, legitimate and evolving governance frameworks. The roadmap should also encompass a path to evolve and globalize the current institutions and mechanisms, as well as address emerging needs." Bestbits workstreams are already active on the first, "Internet governance principles". I think the "roadmap" is one of the topics of the high level panel ICANN initiated, and there's additional work to start on governance frameworks. Shall we? Adam > -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 7:48 PM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: Carolina Rossini ; parminder ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel > > Hi Ian, > > You're right, always looked very ambitious -- and I think made more difficult by the failure of the two main protagonists to explain their specific high level hopes for outcome of the meeting. But very ambitious to call for a Summit (I know it's been toned down, but expectations set) in a 6-7 month time frame. And then to decide it would be a two day meeting (two days: that's 1.5'ish once the opening/closing stuff's out the way) gives little time to achieve much. > > However, I think there's a lot that can (will) be done. > > First. I read the 1Net list with great frustration, and announcements from the local organizing committee with confusion... But when i first heard about it I found the idea of the Brazil Summit exciting, an opportunity to begin to make progress after many years of stagnation, so I'd rather trust rather than mis-trust. > > If we take people at their word, allow for the compressed timeframe all are working under, the general confusion: > > 1. Accept the local organizing committee (LOC) is an honest broker. We respect CGI.br, the civil society people involved are first class. We understand that they are under great time and no doubt political pressure, we can expect they are short of resources (I don't mean cash: people/time/experience, etc) > > 2. LOC, pressed for time, resources etc, have asked 1Net to be the point of contact for global non-govt stakeholders. This is not ideal, but who are we not to respect LOC's request if we agree about 1. above? > > 3. 1Net steering committee has formed, 5 CS members are seated, let's trust our colleagues to help sort out the organizational mess of 1Net. Make sure communication channels are clear, consistent. > > 4. LOC has asked stakeholders to populate committees to organize the meeting. Some confusion over the number of members needed, but rather than worry about that, select the number we were directly asked to select and send in the names. Someone might be disappointed, but so long as CS fairly represented let's accept and move on. Generally stop staring at other stakeholders and do our own stuff. Whoever's selected is going to need support, too much to do in too little time. > > > Substance. Matthew and Andrew are leading work streams, seen very substantive work from Carolina and her colleagues, Wolfgang and IGF dynamic coalition have a body of work. Opportunity for CS to provide information to support a significant part of the agenda. I think the Brazil meeting should be the start of a process, not a stand alone event expected to produce a neat statement and be done (whatever other concerns, there isn't time for such a statement and complete outcome). I would like to see the meeting provide strong global impetus for work to continue under the auspices of IGF. Working groups many of us have asked for. Opportunities around multistakeholder principles (human rights), IANA/ICANN frameworks. > > If we don't start trusting others we might as well stop now. If we later find our trust was misplaced (only 2/3 months away), that might be an indication of a fatal weakness in multi-stakeholder processes. > > (writing this while in a seminar.... have deadlines, sorry this rushed not so coherent) > > Adam > > > On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achieved with the Brazil meeting now. >> >> From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitious given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. >> >> However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. >> >> Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. >> >> But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. >> >> So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. >> >> >> >> >> From: Carolina Rossini >> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM >> To: parminder >> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >> >> No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). >> :-) >> So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. >> So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. >> hugs >> C >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Dear folks, >>> >>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >> >> Carolina >> >> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >> >> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >> >> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >> >> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >> >> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >> >> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> >>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>> >>> -- >>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 00:40:43 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 12:40:43 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <037601cf0b6b$04c7e890$0e57b9b0$@gmail.com> Ian (I’m a bit rushed right now but a brief reply.. From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 11:50 AM To: michael gurstein; 'Carolina Rossini'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Hi Michael, I don’t think anyone is claiming to be civil society. We are simply co-ordinating a process involving major coalitions operating in this area (NCSG, Best Bits, Diplo, APC) working on behalf of the many organisations involved in a variety of networks to provide balanced representation from civil society. I am not aware of anyone else who is doing that, are you? [MG>] You refer to yourself again as “civil society”… and I’m not aware of any groupings doing as you suggest but as you know the CI community is in the midst of a fully transparent NomCom process operating under quite strict and fully transparent guidelines. Nor, by the way, am I aware of any process via which your slate of Community Informatics reps (from one aspect/grouping within civil society) can effectively be considered if you do not join in with your peers here in this process. [MG>] I’m unaware of any statement or other representation which indicates this as you suggest. If there is such could I ask you to forward this to me at your earliest opportunity. Do you want 1net to make some decision to include CI reps and leave out more widely supported civil society reps? [MG>] No, however I’m suggesting that your claim to represent “Civil Society” is incorrect and dare I say presumptuous when in fact you are representing certain significant but by no means universally representative groupings within Civil Society. Firstly, I don’t think they will, and secondly, if they did, I would object strongly to someone outside of civil society making these choices instead of those inside. [MG>] I have no idea how Inet might act in this instance but I agree with you that under appropriate conditions, decisions concerning CS should be made by inclusive and to the degree possible, fully representative and legitimate CS processes. My concern here is that based on both my observation and my experience this is not the case in this instance and the statement of yours that I was responding to was a clear indication that your processes were not in fact inclusive… In this instance specifically of the Community Informatics community. I would still urge you to join with the rest of us rather than setting up a divisive path which is not helpful to you or your organisation. [MG>] As I have said in various ways on numerous occasions I have no desire to be “divisive” but nor am I prepared to accept processes of internal “governance” by CS which I do not consider to be legitimate or inclusive. The CI community is in the process of identifying representatives for nomination for the various “positions” you are pointing to. I would be delighted if once our processes are completed (by the end of this week I anticipate), a means could be found to ensure a common front representation to Inet in this regard. In this instance the broader issues of the lack of legitimate processes within both BB and CC:CS could possibly be put on the side to be dealt with in the very near future, while this particular matter was being addressed. Mike Ian Peter From: michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 2:06 PM To: 'Ian Peter' ; 'Carolina Rossini' ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Ian, I must object to your according to yourself and your grouping the mantle of “Civil Society”. Your group represents certain elements/organizations within Civil Society but there are many many other organizations and individuals who are not represented and perhaps don’t wish to be represented by your specific grouping. I would ask in further communications, which in principle are open to all, that this distinction be recognized and maintained. With best wishes, M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 3:43 AM To: Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jan 11 06:13:45 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:13:45 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fw: Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) Message-ID: <20140111121345.153c6910@quill> FYI... I have just posted the message below on the IGC mailing list, announcing that I will try to lead a process to create a proposal for the substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM. While I intend to try for this document to reach IGC consensus (hence the discussion is going to be primarily on the IGC mailing list), I'd like to invite everyone else --not limited to persons who engage primarily as “civil society”-- to participate in the consensus process for this proposal. If you're not on the IGC list but interested in participating, please let me know, and I'll make sure that you're explicitly Cc'd. Greetings, Norbert Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:00:45 +0100 Von: Norbert Bollow An: Betreff: Substantive discourse processes for the Brazil MSM (was Re: Meeting ... between the LOG and 1Net) Michael Gurstein wrote: > [MG>] My problem/”unhappiness” results from the fact that I would > very much like to see the Brazil process succeed… I think the > Internet and all of it’s users (and non-users) would benefit from > such a “success” but I’m having considerable difficulty in seeing how > outcomes contributory to the general good can emerge from input > processes such as these. In my view, so far the processes for soliciting and handling substantive inputs are still totally undefined, and as I understand the current set-up, it will be part of the responsibility of the Executive Committee to ensure that these processes for the substantive discourse will be good, transparent and accountable. If that isn't achieved, I will consider the Brazil MSM to be a failure before it has even started. But IMO right now there is no reason to be fatalistic about this!!! I'd suggest that all shortcomings of the processes through which various committees are populated are significant only if those shortcomings lead to the MSM not having good, transparent and accountable processes for the substantive discourse, or to the MSM's output document not having worthwhile content. I think that a lot of the criticisms that you Michael and others have made are valid, but unless the meeting dates are postponed, it is simply not possible now to reboot the committee selection processes. Why don't we use the time until the first meeting of the “Executive Multistakeholder Committee” (Monday, January 27th) to come up with a proposal for “good, transparent and accountable processes for the substantive discourse”? I'm making myself available as editor for such a proposal document. Ideally this document will be formally adopted by the IGC through a consensus or rough consensus process; I will certainly conduct the editing process for this proposal document with the aim of reaching IGC consensus if possible. If however it turns impossible to reach IGC consensus, that will not be the end of the idea to create such a proposal, but rather I would in that case publish the proposal as a sign-on statement. Greetings, Norbert From wjdrake at gmail.com Sat Jan 11 06:58:17 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:58:17 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:57 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 10 January 2014 09:51 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> However, before the message that the meeting would now be an LOC-only one came, Adiel did nevertheless respond to that request. As we (ie the 4 networks that appointed the liaisons) have insisted on dealing directly with the LOC, > > Yes, we did.. So wrong to approach 1Net coordinator to facilitate our participation when we expressly decided against it.. For the third time in two days on three lists I find myself in agreement with Parminder, which may be a cause for concern to us both :-) Could someone please remind me which are the 4 networks that insist on dealing directly with the LOC, rather than through 1Net SC as the LOC has asked? And resend the letter from them? Could the folks speaking on their behalf also describe the mechanisms by which these positions were adopted, i.e. was there inclusive deliberation and decision on their respective listservs with their members (which Parminder rightfully called for yesterday), or is it still based on their reactions two months ago to the rather ill-advised way a couple TC people described 1Net’s goals at that Wednesday meeting in Bali? To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. Let’s please just be clear who’s speaking on who’s behalf. For ex, on the 1Net SC, I speak for GigaNet, which had a discussion and picked people. I do not claim to speak for “academia." > >> he encouraged us to take up this issue, too, directly with the LOC. He also noted, "At this point I can not allow myself to talk FOR CS only wile interacting with the LOC". This needs to be read in the light of his efforts to make possible the participation of the 1net steering group members in that meeting, > > Now this is interesting... I know that all stakeholders will participate in organising committees as nominated through their respective processes... What is this about 1Net participating in LOG meeting. what is the basis for that... I don’t want to put words into the mouths of either Adiel or Hartmut, but my understanding was that original hope was that all four SGs would put people on the 1net SC who have a mandate to act on their behalf and a commitment to work together with counterparts, and that thus to have some SC reps participate at least virtually in the meeting yesterday would have been a way for the LOG to bring stakeholders into an initial conversation. But as it happens, the 1Net SC is incomplete because the TC has not seated its reps yet, and only business has identified its reps to the two conference committees, so a substantive meeting to start deciding things became a non-starter. Hence the decision to focus on logistics. Now this may set some teeth on edge, but it should be known: the meeting wasn’t just LOG. Fadi was there, I believe with Nick Tomasso, who manages ICANN conference logistics. ICANN does have administrative machinery for holding conferences and it is a co-initiator of the event, so if the LOG wants its assistance with anything logistical I don’t see why it should say no. Accordingly, Nick is co-chairing the Logistics and Organizational Committee with Hartmut. Best, Bill > > parminder > >> something that was of importance for all those who do feel comfortable with 1net being the conduit for their participation. >> >> Best regards, >> Anja >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Because of confusion and/or misunderstandings if the 1Net Steering Committee already is in place, and >>> to avoid unbalanced participation (only one or two communities), we decided that the meeting tomorrow >>> (Friday January 10th) will be only a meeting of the Local Organizing Working Group (Members of CGI.br). >>> >>> I expect that all BR Meeting Committees will be in place during next week and then we can start to work with >>> high speed. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Hartmu >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9 January 2014 08:31, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Just to let you know, following up on Adam's email, that as a member of the 1net SC, I have requested Adiel to facilitate the participation in person of both Joana and Laura in the meeting on 10 Jan. Joana and Laura are the liaisons who had indicated they could make it in person. >> >> Will let you know as soon as there is a response. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> On Jan 9, 2014 1:06 AM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >> Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. >> >> JC >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe >> >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : >> >>> Hi Jean- Christophe, >>> >>> One correction to your excellent summary >>> >>> Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) >>> >>> The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon ) >>> >>> The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various constituencies but as the technical community reps have not been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term brief than the Brazil meeting. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM >>> To: Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br >>> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel >>> >>> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons for the mess (not always but...). >>> >>> A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand it now, its title might be: >>> ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG >>> >>> So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my information to the listings) >>> >>> When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. >>> >>> This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level of concern? >>> >>> From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. >>> >>> Who are the Organizers? >>> Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... >>> >>> Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet Conference? >>> One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? >>> >>> Who are the Representatives of the Organizers? >>> Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "Brazilian Internet Steering Committee". This committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee, or an ICANN and BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee. >>> >>> For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". >>> >>> Who are the Representatives for all IG participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the multistakeholder story)? >>> After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. >>> Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. >>> >>> *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of participation. >>> >>> Who are the other governments participating? >>> No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. >>> >>> Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)? >>> - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. >>> - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br >>> - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). >>> - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) >>> - ICANN representatives? >>> - Others? >>> ... >>> (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting website) >>> >>> Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) >>> - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his answer yet. >>> - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed something here) >>> - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) >>> * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member at the BI SC. >>> >>> Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare the event under the BI SC overview? >>> This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). >>> The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. >>> For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. >>> We don not know about other names. >>> >>> >>> Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting? >>> LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments representatives are expected. >>> The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for the event. >>> Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting >>> Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) >>> >>> Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill >>> ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views >>> ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants >>> * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not too demanding. >>> >>> The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) >>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) >>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting >>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses >>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions >>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues >>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>> >>> I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. >>> >>> Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time on this. >>> >>> Thanks in advance >>> JC >>> >>> >>> __________________________ >>> >>> Jean-Christophe Nothias >>> Editor in Chief >>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >>> @jc_nothias >>> >>> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : >>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>>> Dear folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>>>> >>>>> Carolina >>>>> >>>>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. >>>> >>>> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>>>>> >>>>>> - a. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: >>>> >>>> Rafik Dammak >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> Anja Kovacs >>>> Vladimir Radunovik >>>> Joana Varon >>>> >>>> Marilia Maciel as back-up. >>>> >>>> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? >>>> >>>> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>>>> >>>>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>>>> >>>>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>>>> >>>>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>>>> >>>>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** 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: From avri at acm.org Sat Jan 11 08:58:53 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 08:58:53 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> Hi, I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on the Brazilian meeting". There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus, to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have made such a decision. Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them is definitely in the the center of things. I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how they do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS stakeholders to be able to get involved. avri On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: > > To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, > Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and > whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the > position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire > 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC > initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is > confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few > people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives > of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing > this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this > role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, > and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated > explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Jan 11 12:01:19 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 18:01:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> Message-ID: <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> +1 Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: > Hi, > > I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali > that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not > forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not > call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' > > I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I > remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning > the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. > I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on > the Brazilian meeting". > > There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus, > to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian > meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of > decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have made > such a decision. > > Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our > midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement > for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. > > I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at > the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was > available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they > did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have > given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them > is definitely in the the center of things. > > I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the > aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we > group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how they > do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear > to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil > society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort > that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats > on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS > stakeholders to be able to get involved. > > avri > > > > On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >> >> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, >> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and >> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the >> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire >> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC >> initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is >> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few >> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives >> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing >> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this >> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, >> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated >> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. From wjdrake at gmail.com Sat Jan 11 13:49:42 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:49:42 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> Hi +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying really were not itching to start another high drama argument. What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform, and by extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to interface with them, 1net and the LOG. Thanks Bill On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > +1 > > > Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >> Hi, >> >> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali >> that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not >> forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not >> call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' >> >> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning >> the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. >> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on >> the Brazilian meeting". >> >> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus, >> to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian >> meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of >> decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have made >> such a decision. >> >> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement >> for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >> >> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at >> the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was >> available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they >> did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have >> given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them >> is definitely in the the center of things. >> >> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how they >> do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear >> to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil >> society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort >> that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats >> on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS >> stakeholders to be able to get involved. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, >>> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and >>> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the >>> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire >>> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC >>> initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is >>> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few >>> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives >>> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing >>> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this >>> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, >>> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated >>> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** 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 *********************************************** From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Jan 11 14:17:41 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 06:17:41 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> The distinction we need to make here is between 1net being a conduit to submit CS names (the current case) and 1net deciding the CS names (which has not been proposed) I would be joining a mass protest if the latter was the case, but it isn't. I personally have no great problem with 1net as a conduit if that is what the Brazil organisers want. Not a big enough issue IMHO. And I think that is where most of the groups mentioned below (if not all) stand. But yes, if that is not the case, let's clear it up on our lists. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: William Drake Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:49 AM To: Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Best Bits Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question Hi +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying really were not itching to start another high drama argument. What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform, and by extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to interface with them, 1net and the LOG. Thanks Bill On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > +1 > > > Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >> Hi, >> >> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali >> that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not >> forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not >> call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' >> >> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning >> the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. >> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on >> the Brazilian meeting". >> >> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus, >> to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian >> meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of >> decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have made >> such a decision. >> >> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement >> for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >> >> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at >> the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was >> available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they >> did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have >> given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them >> is definitely in the the center of things. >> >> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how they >> do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear >> to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil >> society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort >> that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats >> on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS >> stakeholders to be able to get involved. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, >>> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and >>> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the >>> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire >>> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC >>> initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is >>> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few >>> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives >>> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing >>> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this >>> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, >>> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated >>> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** 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 *********************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jan 11 20:59:40 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:59:40 +0800 Subject: Can Brazil achieve anything? WAS Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <94953200-7477-483F-8F8F-0D7302DC3BF5@glocom.ac.jp> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <94953200-7477-483F-8F8F-0D7302DC3BF5@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <0A092C77-375B-4E7C-80EF-106A0ABB8B54@ciroap.org> On 11 Jan 2014, at 3:12 pm, Adam Peake wrote: > Bestbits workstreams are already active on the first, "Internet governance principles". I think the "roadmap" is one of the topics of the high level panel ICANN initiated, and there's additional work to start on governance frameworks. Shall we? Governance frameworks is also already underway through Best Bits; Andrew Puddephatt has been compiling contributions and will be posting the results for further discussion any day now (I've seen the draft). I don't think he's on this list, but we can summarise and repost here. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jan 11 21:14:17 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:14:17 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> Message-ID: <05750857-FF0A-4E90-8DCD-8C2F0F3E4E98@ciroap.org> +1 to Ian's remarks. Big -1 if it proposed that we should be limited to using the 1net committee representatives to make our own civil society nominations. We must retain the flexibility to own our own processes for doing that. Avri (makes a point in a different thread) that the existing members on the coordination group are not inclusive of broader civil society, but this is exactly why using the 1net committee would be a bad idea, as there are fixed number of civil society representatives locked into that committee. In the coordination group, this is not the case and indeed we now have a proposed pending addition of a CIVICUS representative to extend the group to broader civil society outside of IG. On 12 Jan 2014, at 3:17 am, Ian Peter wrote: > The distinction we need to make here is between 1net being a conduit to submit CS names (the current case) and 1net deciding the CS names (which has not been proposed) > > I would be joining a mass protest if the latter was the case, but it isn't. I personally have no great problem with 1net as a conduit if that is what the Brazil organisers want. Not a big enough issue IMHO. And I think that is where most of the groups mentioned below (if not all) stand. > > But yes, if that is not the case, let's clear it up on our lists. > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drake > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:49 AM > To: Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Best Bits > Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question > > Hi > > +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying really were not itching to start another high drama argument. > > What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform, and by extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to interface with them, 1net and the LOG. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali >>> that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not >>> forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not >>> call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' >>> >>> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >>> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning >>> the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. >>> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on >>> the Brazilian meeting". >>> >>> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus, >>> to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian >>> meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of >>> decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have made >>> such a decision. >>> >>> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >>> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement >>> for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >>> >>> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at >>> the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was >>> available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they >>> did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have >>> given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them >>> is definitely in the the center of things. >>> >>> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >>> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >>> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how they >>> do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear >>> to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil >>> society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort >>> that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats >>> on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS >>> stakeholders to be able to get involved. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, >>>> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and >>>> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the >>>> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire >>>> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC >>>> initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is >>>> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few >>>> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives >>>> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing >>>> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this >>>> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, >>>> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated >>>> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > *********************************************** > 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 > *********************************************** > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From avri at acm.org Sat Jan 11 22:07:20 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:07:20 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <05750857-FF0A-4E90-8DCD-8C2F0F3E4E98@ciroap.org> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> <05750857-FF0A-4E90-8DCD-8C2F0F3E4E98@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52D206E8.6000004@acm.org> On 11-Jan-14 21:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Avri (makes a point in a different thread) that the existing members > on the coordination group are not inclusive of broader civil society, > Hmmm, I do not think i said specifically that. What I thought I said is that civil society is brader than IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG. That we are the early participants. My point was that if no group with 'standing' submits a counter list of names for CS, then it is is safe to assume that CS* is being represented by those involved in Ian's group at this point in time. And I was not thinking of this as a rule just for CS but for any stakeholder group. But if there are reputable, for some definition of reputable, groups who do have a different view of appropriate candidates, then yes, the /1net steering group, taking into account any comments from the /1net list, should make the determination of which candidates should be included in whatever committee they are trying to fill. In other words, I find myself in disagreement with the view Ian expressed and will joining in the counter protest. avri From wjdrake at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 04:44:46 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:44:46 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <52D206E8.6000004@acm.org> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> <05750857-FF0A-4E90-8DCD-8C2F0F3E4E98@ciroap.org> <52D206E8.6000004@acm.org> Message-ID: <1D92C57C-F75B-449E-9C58-E99B571198FF@gmail.com> To save on retyping can I just repeat here what I said on the 1Net list, in the event there are folks not subscribed there. > From: William Drake > Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance > Date: January 12, 2014 at 10:35:12 AM GMT+1 > To: Seun Ojedeji > Cc: Avri Doria , 1Net List > > Hi > > There’s clearly a potential tension here that may not be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. For the 1Net SC to only act as a conduit to LOG per Seun, there’d have to be agreement on which peak associations/networks can nominate. But we see not only with CS but also business that there are folks saying who decided that only xyz peak association/network can nominate? So if the SC simply passes along those nominations, it may get accused of deciding to exclude others, thereby demonstrating that 1Net is a grand design of dark unaccountable forces to control the universe, etc. > > If instead we say ok anyone can nominate and the 1Net SC should do due diligence and select to ensure diversity and inclusion per Avri, then the SC has to pick among contending nominations. In which case it may get accused of deciding to exclude others, thereby demonstrating that 1Net is a grand design of dark unaccountable forces to control the universe, etc. > > As a member of the SC, I’m not excited about the prospect of us being put in position where we will stand accused no matter what we do. Volunteering to try and help facilitate a process shouldn’t require body armor. I hope that the stakeholder groups can either come to some internal consensus on who nominates on their behalf, or agree to accept that the SC will do its best to select if they can’t reach consensus themselves. Please let’s try to avoid another stage of representational train wrecks so we can all start to focus on the Sao Paulo agenda. The LOG has asked for substantive inputs on the agenda by March 1. > > Thanks, > > Bill On Jan 12, 2014, at 4:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 11-Jan-14 21:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Avri (makes a point in a different thread) that the existing members >> on the coordination group are not inclusive of broader civil society, >> > > Hmmm, I do not think i said specifically that. > > What I thought I said is that civil society is brader than IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG. That we are the early participants. > > My point was that if no group with 'standing' submits a counter list of names for CS, then it is is safe to assume that CS* is being represented by those involved in Ian's group at this point in time. And I was not thinking of this as a rule just for CS but for any stakeholder group. > > But if there are reputable, for some definition of reputable, groups who do have a different view of appropriate candidates, then yes, the /1net steering group, taking into account any comments from the /1net list, should make the determination of which candidates should be included in whatever committee they are trying to fill. > > In other words, I find myself in disagreement with the view Ian expressed and will joining in the counter protest. > > > 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 *********************************************** 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: From avri at acm.org Tue Jan 7 00:55:04 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:55:04 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> References: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52CB96B8.8010701@acm.org> Hi, It seems to me that if you don't get satisfaction from this group, you can submit your slate to 1net directly and ask them to put you in the appropriate slots, be they academic, technical community, civil society or maybe even business*. 1net is the aggregation group for the Brazil activities, not this ad-hoc group that Ian pulled together, as venerable as the constituent organizations and selection committee are. avri * I have come to understand though my work with PIR on international NGOs last year that in some countries community initiatives are organized as businesses, so it may even be appropriate for some of your colleagues to go through a commercial organization as well as any of the others. I made this same recommendation to the At-Large today as they were trying to figure out the same issue of where they fit into the WSIS 4 way split of non-governmental entities. On 06-Jan-14 22:06, michael gurstein wrote: > Ian, I must object to your according to yourself and your grouping the > mantle of “Civil Society”. > > Your group represents certain elements/organizations within Civil > Society but there are many many other organizations and individuals who > are not represented and perhaps don’t wish to be represented by your > specific grouping. > > I would ask in further communications, which in principle are open to > all, that this distinction be recognized and maintained. > > With best wishes, > > M > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Ian Peter > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 07, 2014 3:43 AM > *To:* Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting > preparation > > Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list > as well) > > I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January > 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if > anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these > meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at > least we will have coverage and involvement. > > I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well > as I have been trying to get further information on this. > > In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with > technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee > given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and > academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. > > At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think > pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 > technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus > the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to > consider further. > > So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. > But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net > eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil > society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not > theirs. > > But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like > 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this > because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that > civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting > of the business community was greater than that of civil society. > > Ian Peter > > *From:*Carolina Rossini > > *Sent:*Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM > > *To:*mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:*[bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Adiel Akplogan* > > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM > Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > To: "discuss at 1net.org " > > > > Hello all, > > I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting > between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last > Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: > > - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this > aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for > the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these > countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. > > - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the > multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in > it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will > chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair > of the meeting. > > - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of > stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification > on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down > as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) > so not to induce further delay in the nominations. > > - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all > the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct > implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by > then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start > some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. > > - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their > only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. > Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone > separately. > > - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and > begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further > specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being > made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed > committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. > > That is all I have for now. > > Thanks. > > - a. > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ > > Open Technology Institute > > *New America Foundation* > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 12 07:49:08 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:19:08 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52D28F44.1040606@itforchange.net> On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:47 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > The distinction we need to make here is between 1net being a conduit > to submit CS names (the current case) and 1net deciding the CS names > (which has not been proposed) > > I would be joining a mass protest if the latter was the case, but it > isn't. I personally have no great problem with 1net as a conduit if > that is what the Brazil organisers want. Not a big enough issue IMHO. > And I think that is where most of the groups mentioned below (if not > all) stand. > > But yes, if that is not the case, let's clear it up on our lists. Ian/ All I do not think that civil society should alone shoulder the complete burden of political naivete and pussy-footing in an environment rife with deep strategic intentions and plans, and the implementation thereof..... Now, I cant have much against those who are thus in a deeply strategic mode. They have their political objectives, about which they must be convinced are the right ones, and are keen on achieving them, with all effort, resources, brains and so on.. But they are certainly not into being naive and pussy-footing... Civil society represents the interests of the most marginalised... It has no right to sacrifice them at the altar of either laziness or political naivete and pussy-footing, and stepping back limply every time someone pushes us... But that is exactly what we are doing here all the time.... Whether it is the recent WIPO treaty negotiations in Marrakesh on access to published works for the disabled or the issue of right to food security at the even more recent WTO meeting at Bali, it is often civil society groups and individuals who anticipate moves of those opposed to progressive causes, strategize counter moves, join up tactically with actors that can help and so on.... They are not sitting around waffling and being pushed and shoved around by the powerful... Which I am sorry to say is what the global Internet governance civil society is doing right now... And this cannot be excused. We must stand up to our responsibility.. I exhort all right thinking people here to pull up their socks, look around to see what is happening, and make their strategies and act on them - they owe it to the cause of the people who cannot be here to fight for their rights.. Now, one can recognise that there are indeed people here who are comfortable to accept and accommodate the 'push', and the directions from where the push is coming, because they consider such accommodation as going well with their specific political objectives .. Very fine... These are politically critical times, and to be strategic is just what is needed... What I have a big problem with, however,is with those who profess that they dont want this rather forceful - almost violent - push to be accommodated, which has reconfigured global IG related civil society, at least with regard to the Brazil meeting, and as per the best hopes of those involved, for ever afterwards.... But then they simply do nothing about it. The time for such procrastination is over... This is a key political juncture for the global civil society involved with IG, and to not do anything now is as much a strong political act as to do something... And therefore we must decide the political act we want to do - have the global IG related civil be organised under an ICANN umbrella, or preserve our independent status, and independent channels of decision making and having relationships with powerful outside actors... 1Net was conceived by ICANN with a specific political purpose, as a part of a composite, well-resourced, strategy. (I suspect that there is active collusion in this regard with the US establishment but if some others want to exclude this consideration, my argument still stands. BTW Fadi did indicate something at Bali to the effect that US knew about the approach he was making to President Rousseff. And since this approach was a part of a composite plan, I would think US knew about the whole plan. 1Net included... Often saying that so-and-so had a 'prior knowing about something' is a polite, controversy-avoiding, way of saying that so-and-so was a part of the plan. This is especially likely since ICANN cannot go around suggesting so seriously that some give-away in terms of some kind of internationalisation of ICANN may be afoot, without the US being a part of most if not all of it. But ignore this part if you want to. Lets take it that 1NEt is simply a part of ICANN's well thought out and implemented strategic plan.) Everything that was expected from 1Net has gone as per the plan, including the civil society playing along extremely nicely. The final strategic intent of the plan - well, excuse me my right to do my 'political thinking' and strategic fore-sight, even if tentative - in my reckoning, is to develop a common position among the 1Net stakeholders and present it as the 'global community's voice', and force Brazilians, from that 'position of strength', to do compromises in terms of final meeting outcomes that protects and furthers the power of many elements of the status quo. (Will expand on this some other time.) It is as a part of these 'negotiations' that perhaps/ likely an already ready proposal of giving in something on US government's oversight role will be offered. I expect this proposal to be somewhat weak, perhaps, giving ICANN direct power to change the root, and not much more. I dont expect legal internationalisation of ICANN. But lets see. And in exchange of such a relatively weak proposal some major give-aways will be sought in terms of the current Brazilian position on the directions towards which global Internet governance mechanism must move. Some European governments will get into the picture as well. All with good intention and for a good cause, certainly. Of course, many things remain unclear... But this in my reckoning is the general plan or outlook. I may be wrong. Now apart from having an extremely strategic, well-laid out plan towards the outcome stages of the Brazil and a controlled outcome from it, it is some kind of a by-product that the global civil society will be disfigured - in being arranged primarily under the ICANN umbrella - for the purpose of the Brazilian meeting. As per the best intentions of the planners, such disfigurement of civil society could in fact be made permanent. Indeed, other than some initial hiccups, like that letter which four networks wrote in Bali - something which is actively being sought to be undone now - their plan vis a vis civil society have been going extremely well. The developing outcomes may even have exceeded their expectations. Normally we should have safe civil society spaces where we could discuss such possible scenarios and strategies of powerful actors just among ourselves . But we all know we have lost such safe spaces, if they ever occurred, and global civil society in the IG space is being practically run over.... I still have great hopes from the Brazil meeting, which I think will provide some major breakthroughs. I wished to avoid openly assessing the strategy of some groups in this way, which I admit does reduce mutual trust. But I see the involved civil society groups looking like entirely losing their bearing. To me, the danger is the very survival of IG civil society as an independent entity, and this is too important an imperative which needed to be addressed urgently, whereby I just needed to write the above note. I may say here once again that all actors, convinced of their righteousness of positions and objectives, as they must be, have a right to be smart and strategic.... My note is really not so much about attributing bad motives to other actors, as it to try and wake up civil society to what it itself needs to do -being similarly smart and strategic...... parminder > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- From: William Drak > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:49 AM > To: Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Best Bits > Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the > question > > Hi > > +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to > remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus > meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying > really were not itching to start another high drama argument. > > What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a > lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC > still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked > everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open > discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in > the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part > of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to > the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their > representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform, and by > extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to > interface with them, 1net and the LOG. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali >>> that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not >>> forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not >>> call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society >>> decided' >>> >>> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >>> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning >>> the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball >>> rolling. >>> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on >>> the Brazilian meeting". >>> >>> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of >>> consensus, >>> to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian >>> meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of >>> decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have >>> made >>> such a decision. >>> >>> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >>> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get >>> agreement >>> for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >>> >>> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at >>> the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any >>> was >>> available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they >>> did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have >>> given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of >>> them >>> is definitely in the the center of things. >>> >>> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >>> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >>> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how >>> they >>> do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may >>> appear >>> to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil >>> society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort >>> that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of >>> seats >>> on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL >>> interested CS >>> stakeholders to be able to get involved. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if >>>> IGC, >>>> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and >>>> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the >>>> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire >>>> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC >>>> initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is >>>> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few >>>> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the >>>> representatives >>>> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net >>>> playing >>>> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing >>>> this >>>> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, >>>> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring >>>> repeated >>>> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > *********************************************** > 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 > *********************************************** > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 12 08:05:27 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:35:27 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D29317.6030304@itforchange.net> There seems to be a lot of agreement here that this is serious question (I think it is a foundational one with respect to civil society configuration in the IG space) - whether different civil society groups want to deal directly with the Brazil meeting organisers or if they want to do so primarily through 1Net as a single conduit. And that, accordingly, we should seek the guidance of the membership of different civil society configurations, wherever and whichever way possible, to have a clear decision on this. I suggest that we do exactly that... I will like the IGC membership for instance to vote on choosing one of the below options With regard to the forthcoming Brazil meeting, do they want, 1. primarily, to deal directly and independently on all key issues with the Brazilian meeting organisers (through the various organising committees being assembled, or otherwise) OR 2. primarily, to deal through the 1 Net structure as a single conduit... It should be obvious that this is not about civil society having any relationship with 1Net or not.... This could be in form of participating in a cross stakeholder dialogue - which is all I knew, and was told 1Net is about, when its steering committee was chosen.... Or it could even be in form of some organisations/ groups among us using that platform for developing common positions with business and tech community for the Brazil meeting (which clearly seems as its primary purpose now)... Everyone has a right to join up with whoever they wish to for such joint positions, or strategizing.. Well, some groups may even decide to do it with the US gov, or the Chinese gov or with Google plus Facebook... That is open for anyone to do.. What is being questioned here is whether we are ready to accept 1NET as our single conduit to the Brazilian meeting, which hopefully is going to be a very important one for the future of global Internet governance. parminder On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:19 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying really were not itching to start another high drama argument. > > What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform, and by extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to interface with them, 1net and the LOG. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali >>> that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not >>> forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not >>> call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' >>> >>> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >>> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning >>> the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. >>> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on >>> the Brazilian meeting". >>> >>> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus, >>> to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian >>> meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of >>> decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have made >>> such a decision. >>> >>> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >>> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement >>> for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >>> >>> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at >>> the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was >>> available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they >>> did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have >>> given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them >>> is definitely in the the center of things. >>> >>> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >>> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >>> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how they >>> do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear >>> to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil >>> society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort >>> that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats >>> on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS >>> stakeholders to be able to get involved. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, >>>> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and >>>> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the >>>> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire >>>> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC >>>> initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is >>>> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few >>>> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives >>>> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing >>>> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this >>>> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, >>>> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated >>>> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > *********************************************** > 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 12 08:43:41 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:13:41 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D29C0D.5070306@itforchange.net> On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:19 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying really were not itching to start another high drama argument. > > What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform,\ I agree, and think this is very important. When CS reps on steering committee of 1Net were chosen what was know was that 1Net is just a cross stakeholder dialogue space... I welcomed it in this role, but as I mentioned earlier on this list, I dont think a steering committee of a discussion space has a very important role, and thus ignored the process of SC selection, as not politically important. Now suddenly, 1Net is the co-organiser of Brazil meeting and the single conduit for non gov stakeholders (and we have to believe that these roles have been foisted by the Brazilians on a poor, organisationally non existent, 1Net, but well) .... I think the CS reps on SC which were chosen with a particular role in mind must re-seek the mandate of those who selected them whether and how to undertake dramatically different roles that 1Net has now been given (or rather has taken up). The networks that constituted the process of selection of these reps must decide on the new role of 1Net, and the chosen CS reps on SC should act as per the instructions of the joint view of CS networks... If the chair of the CS CC group that selected them (Ian), says, for instance, as he does, that CS CC plans to send nominations directly to LOG, then CS reps on the SC must tell others on 1Net that this is how it is, and contribute to forming 1Net's view on it.... parminder > and by extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to interface with them, 1net and the LOG. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in Bali >>> that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets not >>> forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. Lets not >>> call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' >>> >>> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >>> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to beginning >>> the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. >>> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net on >>> the Brazilian meeting". >>> >>> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of consensus, >>> to avoid working through the /1net for all things related to Brazilian >>> meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make that sort of >>> decision. And we were not a civil society congress that could have made >>> such a decision. >>> >>> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >>> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get agreement >>> for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >>> >>> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting at >>> the moment, they have done well at getting us information before any was >>> available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the work they >>> did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the organizers could have >>> given them greater access to what was going on, but at least one of them >>> is definitely in the the center of things. >>> >>> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >>> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >>> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how they >>> do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG may appear >>> to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to cover civil >>> society as a whole. We are just the early participants in an effort >>> that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a full set of seats >>> on the steering group seems like a better way to allow ALL interested CS >>> stakeholders to be able to get involved. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if IGC, >>>> Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), and >>>> whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with the >>>> position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the entire >>>> 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of the TC >>>> initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that this is >>>> confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view of a few >>>> people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the representatives >>>> of those networks to please say “my network” don’t support 1Net playing >>>> this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t support 1Net playing this >>>> role, as the latter is really unfair to the networks that don’t agree, >>>> and it has caused confusion among other stakeholders requiring repeated >>>> explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > *********************************************** > 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 > *********************************************** > From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 09:38:03 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:38:03 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <52D29C0D.5070306@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <52D29C0D.5070306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0c6e01cf0fa3$e90839b0$bb18ad10$@gmail.com> Following this below and in recognition of this unanticipated significantly expanded role of Inet with respect to the Brazil meeting, the Community Informatics network (CIN) reserves the right to present itself for participation on the Inet Steering Committee as part of the CS and Academic components and to further present candidates for those Civil Society and Academic Committees and activities where members of the CIN have particular expertise and knowledge to contribute. The CIN is currently completing a full NomCom process. Reporting is expected immanently. However, based on these new developments the CIN reserves the right to adapt the output of these processes to respond to these new opportunities for effective participation and contributions from the network and from within the context of the Community Informatics Declaration for an Internet for the Common Good. Once our NomCom process is complete we will, in recognition of the revised role for Inet, look to realize the CIN's appropriate role within Inet's current and future activities as significant Civil Society and Academic stakeholder contributors. Mike -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:44 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question On Sunday 12 January 2014 12:19 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > +1 Yes, and as I said previously whether on BB or governance (hard to remember the difference), coming on the heels of the riotous caucus meeting, those of us who didn’t agree with what the others were saying really were not itching to start another high drama argument. > > What happened in Bali should stay in Bali. It’s two months later, a > lot has changed or been clarified, so if the IGC, BB, IRP, and APC > still do not accept the process the Brazilians have once again asked > everyone to follow, please let’s reaffirm these decisions through open > discussions and rough consensus, pronto. And if the members (or in > the case of BB, subscribers) decide they still don’t want to be part > of the process and will attempt to liaise and submit names directly to > the LOG, I hope they will also clarify what functions they want their > representatives on the 1net Steering Committee to perform,\ I agree, and think this is very important. When CS reps on steering committee of 1Net were chosen what was know was that 1Net is just a cross stakeholder dialogue space... I welcomed it in this role, but as I mentioned earlier on this list, I dont think a steering committee of a discussion space has a very important role, and thus ignored the process of SC selection, as not politically important. Now suddenly, 1Net is the co-organiser of Brazil meeting and the single conduit for non gov stakeholders (and we have to believe that these roles have been foisted by the Brazilians on a poor, organisationally non existent, 1Net, but well) .... I think the CS reps on SC which were chosen with a particular role in mind must re-seek the mandate of those who selected them whether and how to undertake dramatically different roles that 1Net has now been given (or rather has taken up). The networks that constituted the process of selection of these reps must decide on the new role of 1Net, and the chosen CS reps on SC should act as per the instructions of the joint view of CS networks... If the chair of the CS CC group that selected them (Ian), says, for instance, as he does, that CS CC plans to send nominations directly to LOG, then CS reps on the SC must tell others on 1Net that this is how it is, and contribute to forming 1Net's view on it.... parminder > and by extension how the SC reps of non-rejecting CS networks are supposed to interface with them, 1net and the LOG. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 6:01 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> Am 11.01.14 14:58, schrieb Avri Doria: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was in the very crowded rooms for those very short meetings in >>> Bali that some people may not have been able to get into. And lets >>> not forget there was not remote participation in those meetings. >>> Lets not call anything that happened in those meetings as 'Civil Society decided' >>> >>> I do not remember these decision as being decisions for all time. I >>> remember the leaders of the room getting passive agreement to >>> beginning the work by approaching the the Brazilians and getting the ball rolling. >>> I do not remember a decision 'we will not work through the /1net >>> on the Brazilian meeting". >>> >>> There were no consensus decisions, by any known definition of >>> consensus, to avoid working through the /1net for all things related >>> to Brazilian meeting. At that point, it was still too early to make >>> that sort of decision. And we were not a civil society congress >>> that could have made such a decision. >>> >>> Because we are blessed to have some very strong CS Brazilians in our >>> midst, those leading the effort at that point were able to get >>> agreement for 4 liaisons to get the ball rolling. >>> >>> I might ad that despite the abuse some of these liaisons are getting >>> at the moment, they have done well at getting us information before >>> any was available on a formal basis. We should be grateful for the >>> work they did and thanks then for their service. Yes, the >>> organizers could have given them greater access to what was going >>> on, but at least one of them is definitely in the the center of things. >>> >>> I want to make it clear that I favor the effort to use /1net as the >>> aggregation point for the non-governmental stakeholders (however we >>> group stakeholders) for the Brazilian effort. Beyond, lets see how >>> they do. As broad as the coalition of IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG >>> may appear to those of us in this bubble, it is not broad enough to >>> cover civil society as a whole. We are just the early participants >>> in an effort that has to expand. A setup like /1net where CS has a >>> full set of seats on the steering group seems like a better way to >>> allow ALL interested CS stakeholders to be able to get involved. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11-Jan-14 06:58, William Drake wrote: >>>> To be clear, lest my harping on it be misconstrued, I don’t care if >>>> IGC, Best Bits (which is mostly IGC people, but no members per se), >>>> and whomever else Anja is referring to (APC?) decide to stick with >>>> the position taken in Bali if they feel nothing has changed and the >>>> entire 1Net enterprise is forever tainted by the original sin of >>>> the TC initiating it. But if so, I would like a) to know that >>>> this is confirmed decision of those networks and not just the view >>>> of a few people in the heated environment of Bali, and b) for the >>>> representatives of those networks to please say “my network” don’t >>>> support 1Net playing this role rather than “civil society” doesn’t >>>> support 1Net playing this role, as the latter is really unfair to >>>> the networks that don’t agree, and it has caused confusion among >>>> other stakeholders requiring repeated explanations of CS’s internal dynamics and who favors x or y, etc. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > *********************************************** > 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 > *********************************************** > From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 10:46:22 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:46:22 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <1D92C57C-F75B-449E-9C58-E99B571198FF@gmail.com> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> <05750857-FF0A-4E90-8DCD-8C2F0F3E4E98@ciroap.org> <52D206E8.6000004@acm.org> <1D92C57C-F75B-449E-9C58-E99B571198FF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <002301cf0fad$73949570$5abdc050$@gmail.com> Bill, as per your below. It would be immeasurably easier "to accept that the SC will do its best to select if they can't reach consensus themselves" if the process of nominating for and selecting the SC wasn't so obviously skewed, restrictive, self-selecting and exclusionary to begin with. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 4:45 PM To: Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question To save on retyping can I just repeat here what I said on the 1Net list, in the event there are folks not subscribed there. From: William Drake Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance Date: January 12, 2014 at 10:35:12 AM GMT+1 To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: Avri Doria , 1Net List Hi There's clearly a potential tension here that may not be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. For the 1Net SC to only act as a conduit to LOG per Seun, there'd have to be agreement on which peak associations/networks can nominate. But we see not only with CS but also business that there are folks saying who decided that only xyz peak association/network can nominate? So if the SC simply passes along those nominations, it may get accused of deciding to exclude others, thereby demonstrating that 1Net is a grand design of dark unaccountable forces to control the universe, etc. If instead we say ok anyone can nominate and the 1Net SC should do due diligence and select to ensure diversity and inclusion per Avri, then the SC has to pick among contending nominations. In which case it may get accused of deciding to exclude others, thereby demonstrating that 1Net is a grand design of dark unaccountable forces to control the universe, etc. As a member of the SC, I'm not excited about the prospect of us being put in position where we will stand accused no matter what we do. Volunteering to try and help facilitate a process shouldn't require body armor. I hope that the stakeholder groups can either come to some internal consensus on who nominates on their behalf, or agree to accept that the SC will do its best to select if they can't reach consensus themselves. Please let's try to avoid another stage of representational train wrecks so we can all start to focus on the Sao Paulo agenda. The LOG has asked for substantive inputs on the agenda by March 1. Thanks, Bill On Jan 12, 2014, at 4:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: On 11-Jan-14 21:14, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Avri (makes a point in a different thread) that the existing members on the coordination group are not inclusive of broader civil society, Hmmm, I do not think i said specifically that. What I thought I said is that civil society is brader than IGC/BB, Diplo, APC and NCSG. That we are the early participants. My point was that if no group with 'standing' submits a counter list of names for CS, then it is is safe to assume that CS* is being represented by those involved in Ian's group at this point in time. And I was not thinking of this as a rule just for CS but for any stakeholder group. But if there are reputable, for some definition of reputable, groups who do have a different view of appropriate candidates, then yes, the /1net steering group, taking into account any comments from the /1net list, should make the determination of which candidates should be included in whatever committee they are trying to fill. In other words, I find myself in disagreement with the view Ian expressed and will joining in the counter protest. 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 *********************************************** 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: From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Jan 12 11:05:29 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:05:29 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D0D446.3070708@itforchange.net> References: <52D0D354.9090209@itforchange.net> <52D0D446.3070708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D2BD49.2080803@cafonso.ca> The obvious meaning is simply that the two structures (CGI.br and the /1Net platform) are helping to organize the meeting -- they do not "own" it. The phrase could be better written, I agree. BTW, as soon as the committees are formed and start their work, the local organizing group (LOG) will lose its meaning and will dissolve. But I think this is obvious too. frt rgds --c.a. On 01/11/2014 03:19 AM, parminder wrote: > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on > Internet Governance > Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:45:00 +0530 > From: parminder > To: discuss at 1net.org > > > > On Saturday 11 January 2014 09:49 AM, John Curran wrote: >> 1net Participants - >> >> There appears to be an updated announcement regarding the Brazil >> meeting - >> http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html > > > from the announcement. > > "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net." > > So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and > it is upto its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most > respectfully, but can we at least now shed this fiction... But of course > I will be told now - what can 1Net do if the Brazilians are intent on > thrusting this momentous role on 1Net? Of course 1Net did not ask for > this role, for there is no 1Net. But then are we allowed to make guesses > who did, nay insisted, nay extracted it. Why dont we just play open and > fair... Everyone has the right to put their views out forcefully, to > make alliances with whoever they can, but this is not that... > > This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at > Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going > through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting. > So, civil society is told, no... your views do not count... And a non > existent 1Net is told, well, you take over.... One is really > disappointed. This was not what President Rousseff started with. We were > trying to make a new start. Seek new directions on where global Internet > should go... > > parminder >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > From avri at acm.org Sun Jan 12 11:08:00 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:08:00 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <002301cf0fad$73949570$5abdc050$@gmail.com> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <0692769ADDC34D30BB8FC05CD100E08D@Toshiba> <05750857-FF0A-4E90-8DCD-8C2F0F3E4E98@ciroap.org> <52D206E8.6000004@acm.org> <1D92C57C-F75B-449E-9C58-E99B571198FF@gmail.com> <002301cf0fad$73949570$5abdc050$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D2BDE0.1060102@acm.org> On 12-Jan-14 10:46, michael gurstein wrote: > ” if the process of nominating for and selecting the SC wasn’t so > obviously skewed, restrictive, self-selecting and exclusionary to begin > with. There is almost always a bootstrapping problem on any new organization or movement. In many case it is a self selected group of venerables as we saw with Bestbits. In process Ian used ass well as the /1net case it was a bit more distributed than that. I tend to think that the methods by which the /1net-sc is renewed in the future is one of the issues the /1net-sc and discuss-list will need to work on for the selection of future /1net-sc members. And this is always a thorny issue. Notice that the IGF MAG, even with the paternalistic selection process managed by the UNSG or his designated other, still functions in a manner many consider unsatisfactory after all these years. I personally think the /1net bootstrap was one of the better ones I have seen. Each of the 4 TA-named groups was given a chance to figure out on its own how to configure itself for representation. Personally I am most impressed by the way Giganet went about it, in that they did a first selection and then reworked it when they were informed of issues. avri From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Jan 12 18:36:53 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 23:36:53 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [steering] Brazil Meeting - Joint Civil Society Letter to Organizers In-Reply-To: <52D30221.1040804@cgi.br> References: <52D30221.1040804@cgi.br> Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser Date: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 8:59 PM Subject: [steering] Brazil Meeting - Joint Civil Society Letter to Organizers To: steering at lists.bestbits.net, info at irpcharter.org, coordinators at igcaucus.org, APC , "discuss at 1net.org" < discuss at 1net.org> To: Best Bits Interim Steering Committee IRP Coalition Coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus Association for Progressive Communications – APC Dear Friends, *CLARIFICATION:* Now that we published the PRESS RELEASE with all details related to the appointment of the different representatives to the *Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, *we like to mention that the LOG (with G) *- Logistics and Organizational Group, *composed ONLY of CGI.br Members (and NOT identical with LOC (with C) - *Logistics and Organizational Committee*), *was the ONLY group working *beforehand to discuss internally the mission that we have received from our President Dilma Rousseff and try to propose a working process for a successful event in April2014. To avoid unbalanced participation, NO representatives or liaisons of any community were part at the LOG (with G) meetings, reason that we don't send invitation for civil society groups. As announced, until January the 27th, all names of the Committee Members must be public and then really the hard work for all of us together will start. We expect to have the full support of all communities in all steps related to the preparation of this very important meeting to foster the involvement of the global internet community. best regards Hartmut Glaser Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee – CGI.br --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joint civil society letter on appointment of representatives to Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance November 25, 2013 To Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, Minister of Communications – Minicom; Mr. Virgilio Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation – MCTI; Mr. Valdir Simão, Special Assessor for the Presidency; Emb. Benedicto Fonseca, Director of the Department of Scientific and Technological Affairs of the Minister of External Relations – MRE; Mr. Harmut Glaser, Secretariat of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee – CGI.br We, as representatives of four networks that include civil society organizations and individuals involved in Internet governance, are writing with reference to preparations for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance that is planned to be held in São Paulo, Brazil by April 2014. During the eighth Internet Governance Forum in Bali this year, many of us met in person, and some others participated remotely and agreed that the following persons would be delegated to serve as interim Liaisons from across these networks for purposes of planning the Global Meeting: * Ms Joana Varon Ferraz, Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV) * Ms Carolina Rossini, New American Foundation * Mr Carlos A. Afonso, Nupef Institute * Ms Laura Tresca, Article XIX Brasil This letter is to express our continuing support for this arrangement as planning for the meeting takes shape. The above interim Liaisons shall remain at disposal of the Brazilian authorities in all matters pertaining to the organization of the Global Meeting, and we urge that our Liaisons should in the context of these preparations be invited to all meetings with all other constituencies as full participants in this process. We support their work and look forward to hearing of progress in their reports back to our networks that are made up of a broad constituency of civil society groups and individuals. They have our trust and support. If you have any inquiries about the above matter, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time, either directly or through the above Liaisons. Yours sincerely, Best Bits Interim Steering Committee (steering at lists.bestbits.net) IRP Coalition (info at irpcharter.org) Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro and Norbert Bollow, coordinators of the Internet Governance Caucus (coordinators at igcaucus.org) Association for Progressive Communications – APC (anriette at apc.org) November, 25th, 2013 =================================================================================================================== Steering group discussion notes: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/steering-discussions Tweet from the Best Bits Twitter account: username _bestbits, password temp01 Add events to our calendar: http://bestbits.net/events/#ai1ec-create-event-modal List archives: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/steering -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- Steering group discussion notes: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/steering-discussions Tweet from the Best Bits Twitter account: username _bestbits, password temp01 Add events to our calendar: http://bestbits.net/events/#ai1ec-create-event-modal List archives: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/steering From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 12 22:28:03 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:28:03 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] To 1Net or Not to 1Net, let's be clear on the question In-Reply-To: <52D29317.6030304@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> <52D0266E.70906@itforchange.net> <52D14E1D.5040205@acm.org> <52D178DF.1040601@wzb.eu> <28977CA6-9138-4588-9C76-7C4A8D906FDA@gmail.com> <52D29317.6030304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D35D43.9030308@ciroap.org> On 12/01/14 21:05, parminder wrote: > What is being questioned here is whether we are ready to accept 1NET > as our single conduit to the Brazilian meeting, which hopefully is > going to be a very important one for the future of global Internet > governance. Will this even be an issue after the civil society representatives to the Brazil committees are appointed (which should happen within 24 hours by my estimation)? Whilst the LOG asked for 1net to be the conduit for receiving the committee nominations, there has been no suggestion that 1net will continue to be a conduit once the new committees are in place. 1net, like the LOG, becomes superfluous from that point forward. I also doubt whether 1net will be able to collectively put forward anything much substantive for the meeting, because there is so little common ground. In contrast Best Bits participants will very likely have joint substantive contributions through our ongoing processes, and Norbert has just announced he plans to do something very similar for the IGC. So 1net may end up being less of a threat, and more of a damp squib. I don't discount anything that you're saying about the political play that the technical community intended to make with 1net, but I just think it has largely misfired and is not going to be half as influential or powerful as they hoped it was going to be. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 12 23:28:48 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:58:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D2BD49.2080803@cafonso.ca> References: <52D0D354.9090209@itforchange.net> <52D0D446.3070708@itforchange.net> <52D2BD49.2080803@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52D36B80.10103@itforchange.net> On Sunday 12 January 2014 09:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > The obvious meaning is simply that the two structures (CGI.br and the > /1Net platform) are helping to organize the meeting -- they do not "own" > it. The phrase could be better written, I agree. > > BTW, as soon as the committees are formed and start their work, the > local organizing group (LOG) will lose its meaning and will dissolve. > But I think this is obvious too. I continue to see it as absolutely problematic how civil society leadership went about making or not making the needed relationships with the Brazilians in terms of having a central and equal part in organising the Brazil meeting - a mandate that was given to it since about a month before Bali, and continually over the subsequent 2 months or so. And how easily they abdicated this role to ICANN. This may have its unfortunate impact on the 'Brazil meeting'. I have a relatively better understanding, and even some sympathy, for the circumstances of need and real politik that the Brazilians felt, which has led to this decision whereby 1Net - a fictional and/ or programmed entity created by ICANN - is now a co-organiser of the meeting on equal terms with the Brazilians. In fact, rather *in preference to* this arrangement, I would have ICANN co-hosting this meeting with the Brazilians. In that case at least everyone would know who is who. And yes, ICANN is of course pretty important is the scheme of things. But whatever be its other good points, it does not have a fraction of similar 'honest broker' image as the Brazilians do, which was the reason that the proposed Brazilian meeting evoked such an excitement and anticipation. The shift to an ICANN co-ownership may be dictated by needs of real politiks but also causes considerable loss. Hopefully the loss does not outweigh the advantage, if any. One does understand that moving ahead on transforming global governance of the Internet will as much be about open and honest dealings, as it will be about real politik, and if it is ICANN which is coming out with a part of the solution (only a part, since bigger issues lie outside the areas ICANN deals with), it may be accepted that they have a big role in the meeting that deals with this solution (hopefully among others, pertaining to larger real policy issues). On the other hand, 1Net is a fictional entity which IMHO is supposed to give a multistakeholder wrap to ICANN's intentionality and agency - and a very significant part/ aspect of this multistakeholder wrap or clothing is the legitimacy of civil society. This is what worries me. (What is referred here to as 'ICANN's intentionality and agency' itself may be a bigger and complex construct, but lets not digress.) A very big part of global civil society inter alia sees huge problems with ICANN-US relationship, and the ideology that wraps that relationship and also underlies other major axes of global control/ governance of the Internet. Confronting this ideology as well as the associated illegitimate levers of control vis a vis the global Internet is among the major tasks that this part of civil society sees for itself. The artificially created/ foisted so-called multi-stakeholder space of 1Net is not at all conducive to this civil society and its purposes and activities. I can explain why and how, but that would extend this already long email. Enough to say, that it is best that 1Net takes no further substantive role in the Brazil meeting now that the various meeting committees will soon be in place. Let it work outside the official meeting space as it wishes to develop common positions, or whatever, which will have to considered "on an equal footing" with other positions coming from elsewhere. It will be unacceptable for the outputs from 1Net to be specially privileged, with the justification that they are inclusive, since it is multistakeholder entity, which includes civil society, and so on. The surreptitiously slipped in, and entirely unnecessary, role of 1Net in forming the Brazil meeting committees was bad enough. You heard Ian Peter as leading the coordination committee of four civil society groups saying that he intends to send the civil society nominations directly to LOG (perhaps copying 1Net as a kind gesture). The message there should be clear. My organisation (and there are many others) will be glad to get a confirmation from the Brazilian organisers, CGI.Br. that similar completely unnecessary roles will not be constructed for 1Net when the tasks of listing participants, and, even more importantly, sorting substantive inputs, channelising them, and developing final meeting outcomes, come up. Especially once the Brazil committees are in place, I dont see any role that 1Net needs to play within the meetings 'official space'. It is different if ICANN is helping the organisers with some logistics and so on. But, I fail to see what role 1Net which is really just an elist plus, now, a 20 member steering committee, with no other organisational form or resources, could play. But if there is some continued official role for it, let us know it clearly upfront, rather than be constantly surprised as we have been with the back and forth on who is dealing with the committee nomination processes. Carlos, as you can well make out, this query is primarily addressed to the core Brazilian organisers, or the CGI.Br. I have the email id that you published to contact the organisers. However, I am not sure how it works and who reads its messages and responds, I therefore request you and Hartmut to pass this on to whoever you think should read it, and get a response for us. Thanks, and best wishes. parminder > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 01/11/2014 03:19 AM, parminder wrote: >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on >> Internet Governance >> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:45:00 +0530 >> From: parminder >> To: discuss at 1net.org >> >> >> >> On Saturday 11 January 2014 09:49 AM, John Curran wrote: >>> 1net Participants - >>> >>> There appears to be an updated announcement regarding the Brazil >>> meeting - >>> http://www.cgi.br/brmeeting/announcement2.html >> >> from the announcement. >> >> "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net." >> >> So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and >> it is upto its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most >> respectfully, but can we at least now shed this fiction... But of course >> I will be told now - what can 1Net do if the Brazilians are intent on >> thrusting this momentous role on 1Net? Of course 1Net did not ask for >> this role, for there is no 1Net. But then are we allowed to make guesses >> who did, nay insisted, nay extracted it. Why dont we just play open and >> fair... Everyone has the right to put their views out forcefully, to >> make alliances with whoever they can, but this is not that... >> >> This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at >> Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going >> through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting. >> So, civil society is told, no... your views do not count... And a non >> existent 1Net is told, well, you take over.... One is really >> disappointed. This was not what President Rousseff started with. We were >> trying to make a new start. Seek new directions on where global Internet >> should go... >> >> parminder >>> FYI, >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> discuss at 1net.org >>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> >> From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jan 7 04:03:48 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:03:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <02e801cf0b55$87010370$95030a50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140107100348.5709b3aa@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > I would still urge you to join with the rest of us rather than > setting up a divisive path which is not helpful to you or your > organisation. Has the Community Informatics community been invited to participate in the coordination process of civil society networks? I'm asking because I was under the impression that the Michael, on behalf of the Community Informatics community, had requested the opportunity for this community to be able to “join with the rest of us” (the various other major civil society networks/communities in Internet governance) but an answer like “not yet” had been given. In any case, at the current point in time, an invitation to the CI community to “join with the rest of us” should IMO not be directed to Michael but to Thomas Lowenhaupt who is chairing the CI NomCom. Greetings, Norbert From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 13 06:32:54 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:02:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes In-Reply-To: <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> References: <52D3CC21.4060402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D3CEE6.5000503@itforchange.net> Forwarding to BB lists also bec I think it is here that Adiel had asked me that I substantiate my assertions about how there has been considerable back and forth on 1Net's role in Brazil meeting, and that evidently 1Net has been pushing hard to get a central role.... Adiel asked me to substantiate my assertion that 1Net was pushing for this role.. Well, to be precise, I cannot say 1Net was pushing, because a mere elist can hardly push in this way... But then the question is; who was pushing, and why? Clue: whoever was pushing was powerful enough to get a significant decision of the LOG reversed in its favour. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:51:05 +0530 From: parminder Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,parminder To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Peter H. Hellmonds" CC: michael gurstein , Deirdre Williams , William Drake On Monday 13 January 2014 04:04 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > For over twenty years I've been "channel operator" on various chat > channels. I always found my role to be akin to that of a janitor, > someone who serves a community without demanding much in return. > > There was always one policy I followed when it came to selecting > someone to become fellow operator: "s/he who asks for it will never > get it." On this criterion, most of all, 1Net should have been denied the gatekeeping role to Brazilian meeting that has been bestowed to it. It not only consistently asked for this role but virtually snatched it out of what appears to be unwilling hands. 1Net first made a unilateral announcement that it had this role (Adiel's email to 1Net list on Nov 18) which is strange since it is the role giver and not the role taker who usually makes such an announcement, and evidently the Brazilian organising committee had said nothing of this kind. That the Brazilian organising committee had given 1Net no such role was evident from the Nov 26th formal announcement of the Brazil meeting. This fact was confirmed by an email to these lists on Nov 27 by Carlos, who attended the organising committee meeting. Carlos was responding to direct question by Anriette who asked and I quote "Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can engageconstructively with CGI.br? To which Carlos responded "Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures havedirect access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single conduit. " I dont know how this situation got fully reversed by end Dec when 1Net suddenly got thrusted into the gatekeeping role. One can only speculate that a lot of arm twisting and political deal making would have gone in there. But surely, you can hardly say that 1Net was the good boy who never asked for the role, as a reward for which it was given that role... > > Why? Simply because those who want the spot don't want it for the work > and service to others, but because it would make them appear "more > powerful", "more respectful", "more important". Times and again when > the policy was not followed, experience has shown and reconfirmed that > deviating from it leads to bad results. Would you now denounce 1Net on this criterion. Or does your advice only extend to those who may represent marginalised groups, with highly under resourced organisational capacities , and not to the powerful and highly well organised ones.. parminder > > Instead, those whom I asked to become fellow 'ops' were those who > worked silently and diligently to create harmony, to develop sensical > common positions, those who had service to the community at their > heart and who would refuse the offer at first for fear of not being > able to fulfill the position of trust to the best interest of their > community. > > Perhaps this example could inform also those in and around this > community in setting and in accepting the selection criteria and > nomination processes. > > Of course, you are perfectly free to completely ignore this suggestion > or to start a "shitstorm" over this. ;-) > > Peter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Andrew at gp-digital.org Mon Jan 13 07:05:19 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:05:19 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Message-ID: Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November. Taking advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Project. The results of our conversation are set out below and in a word attachment. Drawing upon the responses to the survey and other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at: * The case for reform * Possible criteria for reforming IG governance * An evaluation of the different proposals for reform * Preliminary conclusions. Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set out for an IG system, that a dispersed system of governance has more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of governance. We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining a distributed governance regime, but that it should be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about the options and risks here. It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from then list. To simplify things I suggest that people submit three categories of comments. 1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach put forward. I suggest that they develop their own approach find their own collaborators and work on their own ideas. May a hundred flowers bloom. 2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which require further discussion. I will then collect these put together an online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a structured fashion. 3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences. These I will collect and try and resolve through e-mail conversation. We've spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were represented. And although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by March 1st, this position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums. If you have other suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me know. Andrew Puddephatt Internet Governance: proposals for reform ***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project*** In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and other relevant forums - Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society organisations. In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors were aware of: 1. What is the case for reform of IG and do we have a common understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are? 2. If there is a case for reform what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic commitment to human rights and social justice? 3. How do the various proposals for reform stack up against these criteria - what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks and benefits. 4. What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the approach? The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and discussion. 1) Case for reform Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: * There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. * There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and language. * Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled. * The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. * Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. * There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest decisions. * There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the internet. * Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. * Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of "state sovereignty" on the global internet. * There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made - there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them. * The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as an international medium, and its international character and the benefits of free expression and access to information that it brings need to be preserved. * There is a unique property to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordination to make it effective. 2) Criteria for Internet Governance NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to unite around a core set of principles. After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were an essential element of any democratic international governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international governance rather than looking for criteria that only applied to the internet - in order to avoid the pitfalls of "internet exceptionalism". Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally very weak lines of accountability between a government's positions on the international stage and its electorate back at home, open international spaces with broad-based participation can be important opportunities for bringing international decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the group found that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for assessing any proposed changes. The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena: a) Processes * Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; * Accountable: internal and external accountability process should exist, including a way of challenging decisions; * Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver * Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and developments in the field. b) Participation * Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many. * All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements * Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions * Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote. c) Underlying Values * Human rights values should be at the core of any governance process and outcomes. * Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global public good). 3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end of the document. UN Committee Model Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by governments. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and observers from international organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body - identifying issues raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific issues by rough consensus. Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet Democracy Project) This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then be responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to that issue. Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project) Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve experts and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project's model appears to be more of a 'proof of concept' that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the models outlined above. Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political interests. As a single body with oversight - potentially - of all public policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that the body would not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create risks that those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a few times per year. Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet community. There were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn't satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from IGF discussions - this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group. The advantage of these models was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues are addressed. In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed approach where many institutions are involved in different aspects of internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate issues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised approach in the UN Committee model - and to a lesser extent Jeremy's MIPC model. A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach. 4) Existing Institutions The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the ideas above considering the overall governance regime. IGF The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms were identified: * Providing stronger leadership; * A better funded and supported secretariat; * Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system; * Clearing house function; * More output-orientated; * Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for issues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way to global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels; * Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium businesses); * Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. ICANN In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including removing the privilege of the US which was seen as important though largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve both location and structure. However, the group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue. 5) Preliminary conclusions From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jan 13 07:55:57 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:55:57 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: These are a lightly recycled version of my earlier comments which were given off-list. I may have further comments to make based on others' responses. Oh, and first up, great work on this! On 13 Jan 2014, at 8:05 pm, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: > · There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. > · There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and language. > · Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled. Careful here. The Tunis Agenda sets out a separate process on ICTs for development, but this should not be confused with the parts of the Tunis Agenda on Internet governance arrangements. In the WSIS+10 process the Internet governance aspects have been explicitly separated out and I think this was a good idea. > · The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. > · Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. My earlier feedback on this which has been partly addressed above, so I will restate my remarks with slightly more brevity. Although the stakeholder groups and the roles assigned to them aren't perfect as currently practised, conceptually multi-stakeholderism serves an important function, where every stakeholder contributes its own legitimacy to the process. This includes but goes beyond the benefits of transparency and accountability that openness and inclusiveness bring (and which are also found in other open processes like those of the IETF that are not truly multi-stakeholder). Explicitly multi-stakeholder processes allow us to compensate for the power imbalances that exist between the stakeholder groups, which mere open processes do not do. Separation between the stakeholder groups is also intrinsic to many of the concrete mechanisms that can be used for decision-making between groups who have widely divergent interests. To the extent that we are tempted to blur the distinction between multi-stakeholderism and openness, I would caution against this and suggest that we need to better communicate the theoretical basis for multi-stakeholderism and how it adds to the legitimacy and effectiveness of the process in ways that mere openness does not. Anyway this does not require any specific amendment to the text that you now have above. · There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest decisions. · There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the internet. · Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. · Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of “state sovereignty” on the global internet. If it were me, I would put these four points first. The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena: a) Processes · Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; · Accountable: internal and external accountability process should exist, including a way of challenging decisions; · Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver · Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and developments in the field. b) Participation · Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many. I have some reservations about "many". Perhaps I would add one word at the end of this: "perspectives". It is not necessarily helpful or practical to have many unaffiliated individuals around the table, though there should be mechanisms for their perspectives to be represented through whatever legitimate channels they can present them (eg. governments, civil society organisations, companies from markets in which they participate). Some structure is important. If governance mechanisms are too open, the result is dysfunction and/or capture. Remember the criterion "effective" above. See also my comments above on multi-stakeholderism. · ensure that all necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements In other words, I agree with this more than with the first point. · Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote or decentralised collective action The advantage of these reforms is that they provide greater clarity about how public policy issues are addressed - while potentially enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level discussion and back down. By instituting separate processes for separate issues, issues are dealt as close as possible to people that are touched by them and who have expertise in particular field. This model suggests that there is a need for specific and perhaps time limited groups bringing together governments, companies, engineers, users and civil society and which are co-ordinated by the most relevant international agency if appropriate (e.g. ITU or UNESCO). Maybe you could add "or ICANN" here, so that this does not seem too intergovernmental? A key decision is whether to endorse a single decision making space for internet policy or to support a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to navigate but a dispersed system has, we believe, fewer risks for political or corporate capture and could enable issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage on specific issues. On balance we felt a risk/benefit analysis of both approaches weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance. I would like to add, "but coordinated through a reformed global IGF, as the limitations of the status quo demonstrate the lack of effectiveness of a fully dispersed model”. Thanks again for your work on this so far. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 13 08:38:34 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:08:34 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52D3DCED.2080508@itforchange.net> References: <52D3DCED.2080508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D3EC5A.3050805@itforchange.net> Since it is largely about CS and the Brazilian meeting.. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:02:45 +0530 From: parminder To: Milton L Mueller CC: discuss at 1net.org On Sunday 12 January 2014 09:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ________________________________________ > >> from the announcement. >> >> "The meeting is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net." >> >> So, John, do you still hold that 1Net is yet only a discussion space and >> it is up to its steering committee to make it what it wants to.... Most > Parminder, as I read this I wonder where you have been for the last three months. The political complexion of the Brazil meeting has been evident since October. All doubts were cleared up by mid-November, with the initial announcements coming from Brazil. In mid-November the IGP blog wrote: I remember reading it, and also realizing that you had mistaken an announcement made by Adiel by on this list on nov 18 to be an official announcement by the Brazilians. Adiel announced that the non gov members on various organsing committees will be '1Net representatives' who will be selected by the 1Net coordination committee. The Nov 26th official announcement of the 'Brazil meeting' by the Brazilians made no mention of 1NEt at all. It is evident that what Adiel wrote about may be what 1Net wanted but not at all what Brazilians agreed to bestow upon it. ON 27th Nov Carlos confirmed through an email to 2 open CS lists that 1Net was not to be any kind of single conduit or anything.... BTW, I had very poor and intermittent connectivity from late nov to end dec and so yes, I missed a lot of action... But evidently it was only in the LOG meeting report of 20th Dec that 1Net's gate-keeping role appears for the first time in official records. I dont know what happened between end Nov and end Dec, but the above are publicly known facts... I have limited resources to keep following this high politik in all its complications.... But I think civil society should be doing much better than it is doing. That is the point I have been trying to make in the last 2 days or so. > > "The [organizational] structures [announced by CGI] show clearly how the meeting is a negotiated compromise between the Internet technical organizations and Brazil’s government. I agree, it is . Especially now, since the 20th meeting. Although I am not sure we can say it is the 'tech community'. I think it is largely ICANN. > Both sides get to populate half of the four steering committees proposed. The ICANN/Internet Oh! ICANN as Internet! What fetishism . You werent like this, Milton ;) > side takes care of representation of nongovernmental stakeholders (business, civil society, academia and NGOs). We agree on this. That looks like is the deal. And I am fully opposed to it... Just want those in civil society who still do not think, or feign ignorance, that this the deal, to know, now with Milton's confirmation - that this indeed is the deal. That ICANN 'takes care' of the non gov representation at the Brazil meeting... And let they make public their views on this deal.... I have asked for an IGC membership voting whether they support this deal,. Milton, are you ready for such a vote? > The Brazilian side emphasizes representation of states." > > Since the status of the Brazil meeting as a bridge between the technical governance organizations led by ICANN and national-states led by Brazil has has been obvious almost from the beginning of the process, No, that is not how I read Brazil meeting. And I know that is not how most in civil society read it. Brazil meeting arose from some new damning proof of already know unacceptable level of US domination and control over the global Internet . Brazilian officials repeatedly said in Bali that the proposed meeting goes much much beyond ICANN/ I* issues... parminder > I wonder what you actually expect to accomplish by a) pretending that this is a big surprise and b) beating this list and the 1net people over the head with what all of us already know. > > If we're going to have a legitimating and broadly inclusive meeting in April, someone had to kick it off, someone had to take responsibility for organizing it. Efforts have been made by both the Brazil side and the 1net side to be as open and inclusive as possible, though I will admit (and again, was 2 months ahead of you in noticing this) that the early stages of 1net were clumsy and needlessly untransparent. > > [snip] > >> This is completely disregarding 4 key civil society networks who said at >> Bali - and then formally through a letter - that they were not going >> through 1Net but want to be directly involved in the Brazilian meeting. > Nice try. But for CS, academia and PS as a whole it is actually better to have a single, known, well-observed channel run by a reasonably neutral entity than to have a proliferation of unaccountable back channels. > > _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 13 08:43:58 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:13:58 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> Thanks Andrew, a very important work.. Would comment later, but yes, it is this kind of clear positions on what one seeks that it needed at this stage. (Of course I do not agree with a good part of the analysis and conclusions/ outcomes :), and would engage in detail soon.) parminder On Monday 13 January 2014 05:35 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look > at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November. Taking > advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same > week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, > Access, and Internet Democracy Project. The results of our > conversation are set out below and in a word attachment. Drawing upon > the responses to the survey and other reading (listed at the end of > the document) we looked at: > > ·The case for reform > > ·Possible criteria for reforming IG governance > > ·An evaluation of the different proposals for reform > > ·Preliminary conclusions. > > Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we > set out for an IG system, that a _dispersed system of governance_ has > more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of > governance. We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining a > distributed governance regime, but that it should be strengthened > through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and > a process for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to > deal with new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order > to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about the > options and risks here. > > It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response > from then list. To simplify things I suggest that people submit > three categories of comments. > > 1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach > put forward. I suggest that they develop their own approach find > their own collaborators and work on their own ideas. May a hundred > flowers bloom. > > 2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make > which require further discussion. I will then collect these put > together an online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss > then in a structured fashion. > > 3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different > phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences. These I will > collect and try and resolve through e-mail conversation. > > We’ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it > would be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were > represented. And although we should aim to submit something to Brazil > by March 1^st , this position is one we can develop and utilise in > other forums. If you have other suggestins on how to pull together > different comments, do let me know. > > Andrew Puddephatt > > *_Internet Governance: proposals for reform _* > > ***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet > Democracy Project*** > > In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for > internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming > Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet > Governance and other relevant forums – Global Partners Digital and > Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society organisations. > > In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the > group worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits > survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for > reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors were > aware of: > > 1.What is the case for reform of IG and do we have a common > understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are? > > 2.If there is a case for reform what are the criteria for a reformed > system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic > commitment to human rights and social justice? > > 3.How do the various proposals for reform stack up against these > criteria – what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential > risks and benefits. > > 4.What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what are > those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. > Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among > the group present that we could share with the wider BB community to > enrich the approach? > > The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and > discussion. > > *1) Case for reform* > > Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified > the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: > > ·There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, > particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. > > ·There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and language. > > ·Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not > been adequately tackled. > > ·The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. > > ·Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates difficulty > in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be > increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. > > ·There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also > often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human > rights/public interest decisions. > > ·There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or global > public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This > means governments are falling back on different national laws and > technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed > functioning of the internet. > > ·Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many > governments are pursuing/establishing separate international > initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which > are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. > > ·Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of “state > sovereignty” on the global internet. > > ·There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made – > there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them. > > ·The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed > from the beginning as an international medium, and its international > character and the benefits of free expression and access to > information that it brings need to be preserved. > > ·There is a unique property to the internet that requires global > cooperation and coordination to make it effective. > > *2) Criteria for Internet Governance * > > NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second > Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested > baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. > Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to > unite around a core set of principles. > > After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were > an essential element of any democratic international governance > system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of > international governance rather than looking for criteria that only > applied to the internet – in order to avoid the pitfalls of “internet > exceptionalism”. Rather, in a globalised world, where there are > generally very weak lines of accountability between a government's > positions on the international stage and its electorate back at home, > open international spaces with broad-based participation can be > important opportunities for bringing international decisions much > closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the group found > that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, could > have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond > the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are > aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all > the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful > framework for assessing any proposed changes. > > The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for > the governance of complex global phenomena: > > *a)**Processes* > > ·Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to > understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; > > ·Accountable: internal and external accountability process should > exist, including a way of challenging decisions; > > ·Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver > > ·Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and > developments in the field. > > ** > > *b) Participation* > > ·Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many. > > ·All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at good > decisions/agreements > > ·Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions > > ·Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able > to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that > this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision > making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be > alternative supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by > majority vote. > > ** > > *c) Underlying Values* > > ·Human rights values should be at the core of any governance process > and outcomes. > > ·Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding of > the internet as a global public good). > > *3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform * > > The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current > system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models > analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the brevity and > crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions - they are > indicative only. More details about the proposals can be found in the > sources listed at the end of the document. > > */_UN Committee Model_/* > > /Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made > up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of > different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over > global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the > technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the > exception that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a > separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical > experts nominated by governments./ > > // > > */_Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy > Malcolm)_/* > > /A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the > auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil > society, private sector, government and technical/academic > communities, and observers from international organisations). The MIPC > would take up issues forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF > plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF > recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be > non-binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by > other institutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the > national level. / > > */__/* > > */_Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang > Kleinwachter)_/* > > /A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to > the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced > Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body – identifying > issues raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to > address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an > intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisation, a > combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc > multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific > issues by rough consensus. / > > */__/* > > */_Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by > Internet Democracy Project)_/* > > /This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the > MIPOC model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in > the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this > model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, this model > suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should be taken > as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing institution has a > mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate > institution is identified, this institution would then be responsible > for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to > that issue./ > > */__/* > > */_Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by > Internet & Jurisdiction Project) _/* > > /Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific > internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical > standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. > For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should > involve experts and powerful players, such as key governments. > However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project’s model appears to be > more of a ‘proof of concept’ that could feasibly be institutionalized > within one of the models outlined above. / > > // > > Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the > model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore > enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things > happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the effectiveness > criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy recommendations. > On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and more > clarification is needed about potential clashes with existing > mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a > central role for governments, and based on experience of similar > bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political > interests. As a single body with oversight – potentially – of all > public policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was > a risk that the body would not have the requisite expertise to make > informed decisions across all issues. While it could draw upon the > work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and > whether any fixed group of people would have the capability to tackle > a wide range of policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder > groups would also create risks that those impacted by decisions would > not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore there was a > question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group responding > to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a few > times per year. > > Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of > centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental > stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF > playing a more or less central role as a clearing house for > identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process to > inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community. One > advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for enabling > pathways from the national through regional to global level discussion > and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the > IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths > of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to > the wider internet community. There were, however, concerns given > that the IGF hasn’t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its > mandate. For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their > mandate and agenda from IGF discussions – this would require a more > output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to > instituting these models. > > A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly > supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the > current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of > the coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group. The > advantage of these models was seen to be the fact that they would > provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation) about how > public policy issues are addressed. > > In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed > approach where many institutions are involved in different aspects of > internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the > concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate > issues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection > against power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more > centralised approach in the UN Committee model – and to a lesser > extent Jeremy’s MIPC model. > > A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in > expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more > dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. > However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was > seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, > self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage > those without power and resources. > > There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the > distributed models as they retain some of the challenges of the > current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar to existing > governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The other models > involve new and innovative ways of working. The group felt that the > Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test bed for the > modalities of such an approach. > > ** > > *4) Existing Institutions* > > The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the > current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them > to an extent that would allow issues with the current system to be > sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the > ideas above considering the overall governance regime. > > ** > > *IGF * > > The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of > sources below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms > were identified: > > ·Providing stronger leadership; > > ·A better funded and supported secretariat; > > ·Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all > spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system; > > ·Clearing house function; > > ·More output-orientated; > > ·Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of > national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for > issues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding > their way to global consideration and back down to the regional and > national levels; > > ·Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south > governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all > institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to > medium businesses); > > ·Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > *ICANN * > > In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including > removing the privilege of the US which was seen as important though > largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve > both location and structure. However, the group felt that it was > necessary to examine closely the different options - and timeframes - > for doing so in order to determine their potential risks and suggest > appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work > on this issue. > > ** > > *5) Preliminary conclusions * > > From the response to the survey and by analysing various alternative > models using the criteria set out above, there seems to be potential > to come to a rough consensus combining a number of ideas commanding > broad support among civil society. > > _Dispersed vs. centralised_ > > A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more > appropriate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of > expertise could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised system > could be easier to navigate but a dispersed system had fewer risks for > political or corporate capture and enabled issue-based expertise > (including from civil society) to engage on specific issues. *On > balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches weighed more on > the side of a dispersed model of governance*. > > _Broad participation & role of reformed IGF_ > > Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as > broad as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen > as an important space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF > could act as a central space for learning about and feeding into all > internet-related public policies within a dispersed system. *The > reform could entail: a stronger leadership, a better supported > secretariat, stronger links between the IGF and all other > internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to national and > regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening participation and > reforming the MAG.* > > _A new co-ordinating function_ > > There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating > function to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of > internet-related policy making within a distributed model. All agreed > that the coordinating group should be multi-stakeholder but there was > no decision on where that group should be constituted (e.g. at the > CSTD or attached to the IGF). *A new coordinating function is needed. > More discussion is needed about the form, location and processes by > which that function is exercised. * > > __ > > _Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups _ > > When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad > agreement that these should be resolved through ad hoc > multi-stakeholder working groups were developed to deal with specific > issues. There wasn’t a decision yet on where/how those working groups > should be formed (i.e. by different institutions with mandate over > different issues, by a working group tied to CSTD, by a working group > tied to IGF). Also, on decision making there was broad agreement that > the groups would ideally work by consensus with the option to shift to > another process where necessary and appropriate (including > multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). *New internet policy > issues should be dealt with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working > groups which are issue specific.* *More discussion is needed about the > form, location and processes of those multi-stakeholder working groups.* > > __ > > _ICANN reform_ > > *A reformed ICANN – details to be worked on further.* > > ** > > *6) List of Sources* > > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ > > http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/ > > http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf > > http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp > > http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true > > http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf > > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf > > http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf > > http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/ > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf > > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pimienta at funredes.org Mon Jan 13 09:09:11 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:09:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Careful here. The Tunis Agenda sets out a separate process on ICTs >for development, but this should not be confused with the parts of >the Tunis Agenda on Internet governance arrangements. In the >WSIS+10 process the Internet governance aspects have been explicitly >separated out and I think this was a good idea. This is a difficult question indeed. My perception from the field is that ICT4D has been fading out after Tunis and today has almost disappeared from the international agenda (mainly in terms of budget, as discourses always keep rolling). Governance has become the new priority and buzzword of international cooperation. In this context I am not sure this separation is a good idea and anyway some issues are transversal and I seriously doubt that governance is a matter independant from gender, of course; from cultural and language diversity (which I see is slowly penetrating the agenda); but ...also from development. The question is to know if the best answers to governance issues are the same in the industrial world and the developing world; I do not think they are always and global governance issues need to be focused with considerations embracing development. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From Andrew at gp-digital.org Mon Jan 13 11:08:24 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:08:24 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks Parminder Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: 13 January 2014 13:44 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Thanks Andrew, a very important work.. Would comment later, but yes, it is this kind of clear positions on what one seeks that it needed at this stage. (Of course I do not agree with a good part of the analysis and conclusions/ outcomes :), and would engage in detail soon.) parminder On Monday 13 January 2014 05:35 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November. Taking advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Project. The results of our conversation are set out below and in a word attachment. Drawing upon the responses to the survey and other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at: · The case for reform · Possible criteria for reforming IG governance · An evaluation of the different proposals for reform · Preliminary conclusions. Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set out for an IG system, that a dispersed system of governance has more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of governance. We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining a distributed governance regime, but that it should be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about the options and risks here. It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from then list. To simplify things I suggest that people submit three categories of comments. 1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach put forward. I suggest that they develop their own approach find their own collaborators and work on their own ideas. May a hundred flowers bloom. 2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which require further discussion. I will then collect these put together an online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a structured fashion. 3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences. These I will collect and try and resolve through e-mail conversation. We’ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were represented. And although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by March 1st, this position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums. If you have other suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me know. Andrew Puddephatt Internet Governance: proposals for reform ***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project*** In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and other relevant forums – Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society organisations. In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors were aware of: 1. What is the case for reform of IG and do we have a common understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are? 2. If there is a case for reform what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic commitment to human rights and social justice? 3. How do the various proposals for reform stack up against these criteria – what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks and benefits. 4. What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the approach? The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and discussion. 1) Case for reform Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: · There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. · There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and language. · Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled. · The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. · Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. · There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest decisions. · There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the internet. · Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. · Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of “state sovereignty” on the global internet. · There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made – there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them. · The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as an international medium, and its international character and the benefits of free expression and access to information that it brings need to be preserved. · There is a unique property to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordination to make it effective. 2) Criteria for Internet Governance NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to unite around a core set of principles. After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were an essential element of any democratic international governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international governance rather than looking for criteria that only applied to the internet – in order to avoid the pitfalls of “internet exceptionalism”. Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally very weak lines of accountability between a government's positions on the international stage and its electorate back at home, open international spaces with broad-based participation can be important opportunities for bringing international decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the group found that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for assessing any proposed changes. The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena: a) Processes · Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; · Accountable: internal and external accountability process should exist, including a way of challenging decisions; · Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver · Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and developments in the field. b) Participation · Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many. · All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements · Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions · Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote. c) Underlying Values · Human rights values should be at the core of any governance process and outcomes. · Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global public good). 3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end of the document. UN Committee Model Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by governments. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and observers from international organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body – identifying issues raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific issues by rough consensus. Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet Democracy Project) This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then be responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to that issue. Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project) Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve experts and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project’s model appears to be more of a ‘proof of concept’ that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the models outlined above. Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political interests. As a single body with oversight – potentially – of all public policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that the body would not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create risks that those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a few times per year. Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet community. There were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn’t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from IGF discussions – this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group. The advantage of these models was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues are addressed. In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed approach where many institutions are involved in different aspects of internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate issues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised approach in the UN Committee model – and to a lesser extent Jeremy’s MIPC model. A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach. 4) Existing Institutions The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the ideas above considering the overall governance regime. IGF The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms were identified: · Providing stronger leadership; · A better funded and supported secretariat; · Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system; · Clearing house function; · More output-orientated; · Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for issues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way to global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels; · Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium businesses); · Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. ICANN In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including removing the privilege of the US which was seen as important though largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve both location and structure. However, the group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue. 5) Preliminary conclusions From the response to the survey and by analysing various alternative models using the criteria set out above, there seems to be potential to come to a rough consensus combining a number of ideas commanding broad support among civil society. Dispersed vs. centralised A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more appropriate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to navigate but a dispersed system had fewer risks for political or corporate capture and enabled issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage on specific issues. On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance. Broad participation & role of reformed IGF Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an important space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act as a central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related public policies within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a stronger leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between the IGF and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to national and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening participation and reforming the MAG. A new co-ordinating function There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating function to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related policy making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A new coordinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the form, location and processes by which that function is exercised. Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad agreement that these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn’t a decision yet on where/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by different institutions with mandate over different issues, by a working group tied to CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision making there was broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by consensus with the option to shift to another process where necessary and appropriate (including multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). New internet policy issues should be dealt with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups which are issue specific. More discussion is needed about the form, location and processes of those multi-stakeholder working groups. ICANN reform A reformed ICANN – details to be worked on further. 6) List of Sources http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/ http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/ http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 13 21:18:45 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:18:45 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Full Transparency of the Community Informatics Community Message-ID: <070901cf10ce$f64f1900$e2ed4b00$@gmail.com> I would like to draw the attention of 1net and others to the full 12 year history and transparency (and depth, breadth and scope) of the Community Informatics community and perhaps of particular interest, the most recent processes for consensus agreement on the Community Informatics Declaration and the development of our NomCom process. http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers . I stand to be corrected, but I believe that none of the other current participants in either the IG CS (such as those represented by the CS: CC) or the IG academic space (e.g. Giganet) have either the transparency (or, with one exception, history) of our community although I understand that one of these groups is currently scrambling to achieve this transparency perhaps because of the light on this issue which the CI community is presenting. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:37 AM To: 'discuss at 1net.org'; 'Adiel Akplogan' Subject: RE: Community Informatics Nomination for the Civil Society Stakeholder Group for the 1Net Steering Committee Adiel, I have the honour of submitting the report of the Community Informatics Network's NomCom process and the Community Informatics community's nominations for appointment to the 1net Steering Committee as representatives of the civil society stakeholder group --Michael Gurstein (Canada). My biography and qualifications for such a status will be provided to you on request. I look forward to receiving confirmation from you of the receipt of this nomination and I trust that this nomination will be responded to in a just and respectful manner recognizing the need overall for broad inclusivity including of experience and orientation and that you/1net will act in a manner reflective of the degree of transparency and accountability to which all those associated with global Internet Governance aspire. Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Lowenhaupt Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 11:47 PM To: governance list IG Caucus Subject: [governance] Final Report of the CI Nominating Committee to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance I was recently honored to be asked to be the (non-voting) Chair of a nominating committee charged with selecting candidates from the Community Informatics Research Network to participate in the upcoming GMMGIF in Brazil. The following Release Statement and Final Report detail the work of the NomCom. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt Release Statement The Final Report of the Community Informatics Nominating Committee for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance was completed yesterday. (Copy Attached) The Report details the selection process for nominees to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance (GMMFIG) to be held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 23-24, 2014. The Meeting will focus on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. The Nominating Committee's (NomCom) charge was to recommend four candidates to participate in shaping the GMMFIC's work. The Nominating Committee 's five voting members were David Nemer, Parminder Jeet Singh, Brian Beaton, Chris Zielinski, and Charles Dhewa. After completing a careful review of the position requirements and candidates, the NomCom chose the following: . Multistakeholder High Level Committee - the nominee was Cristian Berrio Zapata . Executive Multistakeholder Committee - the nominee was Michael Gurstein . 1Net Academic Posts Steering Committee - the nominees were Doug Schuler and Cristian Berrio Zapata Having closely followed the organization of the upcoming meeting in Brazil, the NomCom's members added a codicil to their report, recommending that their selectees also be charged with interfacing with the 1Net, an entity assisting with organizing the April 23-23 Meeting. Details of the NomCom's work including process and candidate biographies can be found in the attached report: Community Informatics Nominating Committee for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance, January 12, 2014. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt, (non-voting) Chair of the Nominating Committee TomL at communisphere.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Jan 14 03:05:33 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:05:33 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] Full Transparency of the Community Informatics Community In-Reply-To: <070901cf10ce$f64f1900$e2ed4b00$@gmail.com> References: <070901cf10ce$f64f1900$e2ed4b00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:18 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I would like to draw the attention of 1net and others to the full 12 year > history and transparency (and depth, breadth and scope) of the Community > Informatics community and perhaps of particular interest, the most recent > processes for consensus agreement on the Community Informatics Declaration > and the development of our NomCom process. > http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers . > > Not poking and definitely not attempting to judge on which is more transparent, but i quickly went through the archive from Dec through Jan and i saw about 3-4 mails relating to 1Net, (one was about the call which was first made on the 30th Dec and the rest were final report and response). I wonder what happened between the call and final report. I also note that the call was for nomination to represent CI, now i am wondering which of the stakeholders is actually CI. I had mentioned this during the Giganet process(which received positive response) and i will say it again to CI; any organisation that intend to provide a global representation "on behalf" needs to be open and willing to ensure its nomination process is globally inclusive and not just within its memberships. Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jan 14 04:11:43 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:11:43 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] Full Transparency of the Community Informatics Community In-Reply-To: References: <070901cf10ce$f64f1900$e2ed4b00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140114101143.7d424c54@quill> Seun Ojedeji wrote: > I had mentioned this during the Giganet process(which > received positive response) and i will say it again to CI; any > organisation that intend to provide a global representation "on > behalf" needs to be open and willing to ensure its nomination process > is globally inclusive and not just within its memberships. The CI NomCom process did not intend or claim to choose a set of representatives on behalf of “civil society as a whole” nor on behalf of “academic communities as a whole”; it was a process of a specific (pretty big) community that the Giganet Chair accepts as being (at least in part) academic but not as having relevance to Internet governance, and where the question of acceptance among the select few networks that have formed the “civil society coordination group” alliance is still pending. Consequently (and IMO quite appropriately) this process was started only as a “last resort” of sorts after it had become clear that inclusion of the CI community in the processes that were being organized with the aim of providing a complete set of representatives for stakeholder categories would not be achieved in time for the processes related to the São Paulo meeting (and probably never unless the demand for inclusion would be asserted more forcefully than had been the case so far), and also the CI NomCom's nominations do not provide a full slate of nominations, hence there is no implied claim of representing all relevant communities. Greetings, Norbert From laura at article19.org Tue Jan 7 06:03:20 2014 From: laura at article19.org (Laura Tresca) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:03:20 +0000 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D46C95@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Dear Ian, If it´s helpful, ARTICLE 19 is based in Sao Paulo. We can temporary attend this specific meeting and report back to you. Best regards, Laura. ARTICLE 19 Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org ________________________________ De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Enviado: segunda-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2014 18:42 Para: Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined. However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" > Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jan 14 04:36:17 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:36:17 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [discuss] Full Transparency of the Community Informatics Community In-Reply-To: References: <070901cf10ce$f64f1900$e2ed4b00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <07f701cf110c$15aca730$4105f590$@gmail.com> Hi Seun, Thanks for paying such close attention. With respect to your first question re: 1net and CI, I can only point you to the following paragraph in Tom's covering letter. I do know that only a few members of the CI community are currently closely following these discussions and fortunately several of those were directly involved in the NomCom process so there was likely internal communication between them concerning 1net during the NomCom selection process itself which of course, was not conducted on the open e-list. Having closely followed the organization of the upcoming meeting in Brazil, the NomCom's members added a codicil to their report, recommending that their selectees also be charged with interfacing with the 1Net, an entity assisting with organizing the April 23-23 Meeting. With respect to your second question, a very significant proportion of CI community members are from LDC's, including some of the most active. With respect to the NomCom process, there were candidates from all continents (except Europe) including Laban Bagui, a Cameroonian currently living in South Africa (his bio is included in Tom's) report. While he was unsuccessful in the process Cristian Berrio Zapata, a Columbian currently living in Brazil was a nominee. Charles Dhewa from Harare, Zimbabwe volunteered for and was randomly selected to be on the Nominating committee itself. (As an aside, could I call your attention to the just released special issue of the Journal of Community Informatics on Community Informatics in Southern Africa . Best, Mike From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:06 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: discuss at 1net.org; Adiel Akplogan; bestbits; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC Subject: Re: [discuss] Full Transparency of the Community Informatics Community On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:18 AM, michael gurstein wrote: I would like to draw the attention of 1net and others to the full 12 year history and transparency (and depth, breadth and scope) of the Community Informatics community and perhaps of particular interest, the most recent processes for consensus agreement on the Community Informatics Declaration and the development of our NomCom process. http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers . Not poking and definitely not attempting to judge on which is more transparent, but i quickly went through the archive from Dec through Jan and i saw about 3-4 mails relating to 1Net, (one was about the call which was first made on the 30th Dec and the rest were final report and response). I wonder what happened between the call and final report. I also note that the call was for nomination to represent CI, now i am wondering which of the stakeholders is actually CI. I had mentioned this during the Giganet process(which received positive response) and i will say it again to CI; any organisation that intend to provide a global representation "on behalf" needs to be open and willing to ensure its nomination process is globally inclusive and not just within its memberships. Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jan 14 21:47:41 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:47:41 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Nominations for Brazil Committees Message-ID: <8A1084DAC56242BA9CB92F4547846D0D@Toshiba> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration High Level Committee Jovan Kurbalija Stephanie Perrin Louis Pouzin Executive Multistakeholder Committee Adam Peake Marilia Maciel Biographical details appear below. The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. We have attempted to find a balance among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. While we had challenges, particularly in geography, we trust that the combination of candidates broadly represent the civil society community involved in this process. We believe that they will bring civil society perspectives and advocacy to the discussions and ensure that important issues of concern are not neglected. Biographical details are below. Ian Peter (non voting Chair) BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Tue Jan 14 21:51:45 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:51:45 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Nominations for Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <8A1084DAC56242BA9CB92F4547846D0D@Toshiba> References: <8A1084DAC56242BA9CB92F4547846D0D@Toshiba> Message-ID: <551FF7E6-0EE5-4421-AB8F-68C4318FFED5@me.com> Excellent team, congratulations for all _ João Carlos Caribé (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPad > Em 15/01/2014, às 00:47, Ian Peter escreveu: > > > > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration > > High Level Committee > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > > We have attempted to find a balance among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. While we had challenges, particularly in geography, we trust that the combination of candidates broadly represent the civil society community involved in this process. We believe that they will bring civil society perspectives and advocacy to the discussions and ensure that important issues of concern are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. > > Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > > Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. > > Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. > > Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 14 22:31:08 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:31:08 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52D600FC.7080103@ciroap.org> Here are the results of the call for nominations to the two Brazil meeting committees, as handled by the Civil Society IG Coordination Group, on which I am the liaison for the Best Bits community. This email comes from independent chair Ian Peter. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:31:55 +1100 From: Ian Peter Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Ian Peter" To: I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration *High Level Committee* Jovan Kurbalija Stephanie Perrin Louis Pouzin *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* Adam Peake Marilia Maciel Biographical details appear below. The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. Biographical details are below. Ian Peter (non voting Chair) BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS *Dr Jovan Kurbalija*is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. *Stephanie Perrin*is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. *Louis Pouzin*is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks.Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. *Adam Peake*is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. *Marília Maciel*works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Tue Jan 14 23:31:32 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:31:32 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports Message-ID: Dear all, There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I don't think have been circulate here yet): - President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be streamed. - The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing two separate reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. - The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be officially released on 23 January and "public and unclassified". - The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on analysis of classified material and may have a classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not yet known. Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed a letter (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its public comment period, urging the body to make recommendations to ensure that surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 meets international human rights standards. Below is a blog from Access with some more information. Kind regards, Deborah https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? 11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by *Drew Mitnick* *Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at OpenTheGovernment.org for this information.* Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) released a statement detailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA surveillance programs. The Board will release one report on metadata collection under PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January or early February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702, with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel report by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, released in December 2013. PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. First and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific recommendations that were lacking in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of evidence that none of these answers are yes. *Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth?* Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has so far been underutilized and hamstrung. The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only full-time position, until May of last year. PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, but have been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena power, and requisite security clearances. And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has zero enforcement power . The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the PCLOB was not up for the task of effective oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27 included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or perhaps, “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass foreign intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate of FISA programs. *Will we see a public report on Section 702?* The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews of Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention of a public release, while stating that the report will address “classified materials.” The programs conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the least about. Some of the weakest parts of the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains classified, efforts to reform these programs will be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on Section 702 programs. *Will Obama even listen?* Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will give weight to their recommendations. President Obama has announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance reforms on January 17th, just days before the first PCLOB report drops . This timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 programs? Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after the President’s speech, these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the rights of non-US persons. *What does this mean?* In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment period this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of recommendations, including some recommending greater rights protections for non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of others -- would be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with the public debate that precipitated the review, and will almost certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change. -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jan 14 23:50:14 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:50:14 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52D600FC.7080103@ciroap.org> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <52D600FC.7080103@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <00e601cf11ad$4b009ee0$e101dca0$@gmail.com> I think that it is worth pointing out that this selection, whatever the evident merits of the individuals selected, was made by a self-appointed group representing a self-selected set of civil society organizations (the CS:CC) from which the Community Informatics network which has been active in civil society (and other matters) concerning the Internet since 2001; was, without cause, explanation or justification, excluded. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:31 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees Here are the results of the call for nominations to the two Brazil meeting committees, as handled by the Civil Society IG Coordination Group, on which I am the liaison for the Best Bits community. This email comes from independent chair Ian Peter. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:31:55 +1100 From: Ian Peter Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Ian Peter" To: I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration High Level Committee Jovan Kurbalija Stephanie Perrin Louis Pouzin Executive Multistakeholder Committee Adam Peake Marilia Maciel Biographical details appear below. The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. Biographical details are below. Ian Peter (non voting Chair) BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 15 00:34:20 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:04:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52D61DDC.1010300@itforchange.net> Congrats and best wishes to all selected nominees. I am especially happy to see Louis Pouzin in the HLC. Whereas there are other good nominees as well, it is disappointing that a civil society slate is so dis-balanced between developed and developing country participation, 4 to 1. Civil processes used to be meticulous in this regard and would rather err on the side of more developing country nominees.. A connected point, I do not think that the proposed criterion of having a work background in, and linkages to, interests/ issues related to marginalised groups got applied. I am happy to hear committee chair's comment in this regard. Was this criterion applied, and if so, how. Thanks. This term 'marginalised groups' seems to have become kind of esoteric in this space, which is rather problematic. Isnt civil society supposed to be mostly about such issues and interests. parminder On Wednesday 15 January 2014 08:01 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many > thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in > this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very > talented list of names for consideration > > *High Level Committee* > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for > HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call > for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, > Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , > and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No > nominations were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the > volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly > talented field and making decisions on final candidates was > subsequently a significant challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque > (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo > (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting > Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be > controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the > candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such > factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and > constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising > our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number > of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for > Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will > bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern > to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > *Dr Jovan Kurbalija*is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is > a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy > of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit > evolved into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the > United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and > Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of > an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, > online negotiations and diplomatic law. > > *Stephanie Perrin*is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is > conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced > authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has > been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group > on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience > includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in > Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and > Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of > Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the > development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She > has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy > issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy > for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based > in Canada. > > *Louis Pouzin*is one of the pioneers in computer communications and > the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades > network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end > protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and > contributes to several associations and working groups related to > Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet > awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from > Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book > on computer networks.Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a > strong advocate in internet governance discussions. > > *Adam Peake*is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works > on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up > activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). > Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment > and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert > on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services > and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for > Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the > United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on > Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of > Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. > > *Marília Maciel*works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project > Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media > reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and > distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on > Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property > Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American > Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law > degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor > in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by > DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote > Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different > countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote > attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 15 00:41:17 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:11:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society representation on Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <00e601cf11ad$4b009ee0$e101dca0$@gmail.com> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <52D600FC.7080103@ciroap.org> <00e601cf11ad$4b009ee0$e101dca0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D61F7D.8020400@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 15 January 2014 10:20 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > I think that it is worth pointing out that this selection, whatever > the evident merits of the individuals selected, was made by a > self-appointed group representing a self-selected set of civil society > organizations (the CS:CC) from which the Community Informatics network > which has been active in civil society (and other matters) concerning > the Internet since 2001; was, without cause, explanation or > justification, excluded. > I also consider the exclusion of the CI network as completely unexplained and unjustified.... Especially when in the CI network almost everyone has some direct relationship with marginalised groups related work, causes and interests. And this in the direct context of new ICTs, of which the Internet is of course the central paradigm. On one hand, such a group is excluded from the civil society's apex structure and, on the other hand, the existing structure refuses to apply the 'marginalised groups' criterion... This isnt ok.. parminder > > Mike > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:31 AM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* [bestbits] Results of nominations for civil society > representation on Brazil meeting committees > > Here are the results of the call for nominations to the two Brazil > meeting committees, as handled by the Civil Society IG Coordination > Group, on which I am the liaison for the Best Bits community. This > email comes from independent chair Ian Peter. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > *Subject: * > > > > [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees > > *Date: * > > > > Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:31:55 +1100 > > *From: * > > > > Ian Peter > > *Reply-To: * > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ,"Ian Peter" > > > *To: * > > > > > > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many > thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in > this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very > talented list of names for consideration > > *High Level Committee* > > Jovan Kurbalija > Stephanie Perrin > Louis Pouzin > > *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* > > Adam Peake > Marilia Maciel > > Biographical details appear below. > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for > HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call > for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, > Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , > and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No > nominations were denied full consideration. > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the > volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly > talented field and making decisions on final candidates was > subsequently a significant challenge. > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque > (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo > (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting > Chair. > > We realise that some aspects of these selections will be > controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the > candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such > factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and > constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising > our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number > of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for > Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will > bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern > to many members of civil society are not neglected. > > Biographical details are below. > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > *Dr Jovan Kurbalija*is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is > a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy > of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit > evolved into DiploFoundation. > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the > United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and > Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of > an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, > online negotiations and diplomatic law. > > *Stephanie Perrin*is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is > conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced > authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has > been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group > on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience > includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in > Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and > Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of > Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the > development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She > has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy > issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy > for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based > in Canada. > > *Louis Pouzin*is one of the pioneers in computer communications and > the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades > network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end > protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and > contributes to several associations and working groups related to > Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet > awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from > Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book > on computer networks.Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a > strong advocate in internet governance discussions. > > *Adam Peake*is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works > on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up > activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). > Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment > and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert > on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services > and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for > Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the > United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on > Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of > Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. > > *Marília Maciel*works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project > Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media > reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and > distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on > Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property > Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American > Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law > degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor > in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by > DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote > Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different > countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote > attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Jan 15 03:39:56 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:39:56 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info. Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I suppose it will bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too basic, but what can be the height for a report such as this? Is there any process within the US gov in face of it? Best Joana On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" wrote: > Dear all, > > There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I > don't think have been circulate here yet): > > - President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform > this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be > streamed. > - The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing > two separate reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. > - The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section > 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court > (FISC). It should be officially released on 23 January and "public and > unclassified". > - The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. > persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be > public, it will rely on analysis of classified material and may have a > classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could make it > more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the targeting of > so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not > yet known. > > Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed a > letter (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its > public comment period, urging the body to make recommendations to ensure > that surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 meets > international human rights standards. > > Below is a blog from Access with some more information. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless > Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? 11:56am | 14 January > 2014 | by *Drew Mitnick* > > *Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be > public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends > at OpenTheGovernment.org for this > information.* > > Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) > released a statement detailing > plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA surveillance > programs. The Board will release one report on metadata collection under > PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court > (FISC), expected in late January or early February, and a second report on > the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702, with an > indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel > report > by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications > Technologies, released in December 2013. > > PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. First > and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific > recommendations that were lacking > in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be > public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the > Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of evidence that none of these > answers are yes. > > *Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth?* > > Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office > of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent > agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the President on civil liberties > in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has so far been underutilized > and hamstrung. > The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only full-time > position, until May of last year. > PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, but have > been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena power, and requisite > security clearances. > And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a fundamental fact > remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has zero enforcement > power > . > > The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment > by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the > PCLOB was not up for the task of effective oversight as currently > structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27 included a call to > increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the > name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or > perhaps, “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow > authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass foreign > intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate of FISA programs. > > *Will we see a public report on Section 702?* > > The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews of > Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced > in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement may > provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be > “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention > of a public release, while stating that the report will address “classified > materials.” The programs conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the > greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the > least about. Some of the weakest parts of > the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on > treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains > classified, efforts to reform these programs will be severely hindered. We > urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on Section 702 > programs. > > *Will Obama even listen?* > > Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, > there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will give weight to > their recommendations. President Obama has announced he will make a speech > on his proposed surveillance reforms on January 17th, just days before > the first PCLOB report drops > . This timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any > criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, while > simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on reform > efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 > programs? Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after > the President’s speech, these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim > scenario for the rights of non-US persons. > > *What does this mean?* > > In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment period > this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of > recommendations, including some recommending greater rights protections for > non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the Section 702 programs. At the > time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of others -- would > be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret > review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces > the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance > programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with the public debate that > precipitated the review, and will almost certainly fail to effect any > meaningful or accountable change. > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jan 15 04:27:54 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:27:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nominations for Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <551FF7E6-0EE5-4421-AB8F-68C4318FFED5@me.com> References: <8A1084DAC56242BA9CB92F4547846D0D@Toshiba> <551FF7E6-0EE5-4421-AB8F-68C4318FFED5@me.com> Message-ID: <20140115102754.4185651a@quill> Hmm... I'm not sure that this looks so good, especially in the context that the whole event has been born to a significant extent out of concerns about whether the needs of developing countries and the people living there, and their human rights, are adequately supported by the current Internet governance regime. I think that developing country civil society perspectives would have been particularly important for High Level Committee. Is there a chance for the coordination group to reconsider in regard to this aspect, or are we absolutely out of time? Greetings, Norbert Am Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:51:45 -0200 schrieb " João Carlos R. Caribé " : > Excellent team, congratulations for all > > _ > João Carlos Caribé > (021) 8761 1967 > (021) 4042 7727 > Skype joaocaribe > Enviado via iPad > > > Em 15/01/2014, às 00:47, Ian Peter > > escreveu: > > > > > > > > I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many > > thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in > > this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very > > talented list of names for consideration > > > > High Level Committee > > > > Jovan Kurbalija > > Stephanie Perrin > > Louis Pouzin > > > > Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > > > Adam Peake > > Marilia Maciel > > > > Biographical details appear below. > > > > The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for > > HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated > > call for nominations across various civil society networks, > > including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil > > society networks , and including nominations from other CS > > individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. > > > > The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society > > lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all > > the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly > > talented field and making decisions on final candidates was > > subsequently a significant challenge. > > > > The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque > > (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo > > (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non > > voting Chair. > > > > We have attempted to find a balance among the candidates who best > > fit our criteria for selection such factors as gender, geography, > > advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. While we had > > challenges, particularly in geography, we trust that the > > combination of candidates broadly represent the civil society > > community involved in this process. We believe that they will bring > > civil society perspectives and advocacy to the discussions and > > ensure that important issues of concern are not neglected. > > > > Biographical details are below. > > > > > > > > Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > > > > BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > > > > Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He > > is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, > > he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean > > Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than > > ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, > > the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. > > > > Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy > > and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, > > the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, > > and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the > > development of an international Internet regime, the use of > > hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. > > > > Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in > > privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, > > and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced > > authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and > > has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working > > Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her > > experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, > > including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of > > Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and > > as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was > > responsible for the development of the private sector privacy > > legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has > > consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including > > advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian > > Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > > > > Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and > > the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the > > Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching > > end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now > > retired and contributes to several associations and working groups > > related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and > > IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. > > He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published > > 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or > > Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance > > discussions. > > > > Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He > > works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and > > follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information > > Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities > > for the deployment and development of the Internet since the > > mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the > > broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has > > conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on > > telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, > > Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for > > MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a > > former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. > > > > Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law > > and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society > > of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads > > project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new > > media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural > > production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the > > Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the > > World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a > > Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal > > University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal > > University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet > > Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by > > DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote > > Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different > > countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance > > remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Jan 7 06:05:36 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 16:35:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Nominations for the High Level Committee Message-ID: <52CBDF80.3070205@ITforChange.net> Hi Ian/ all, I will like to nominate Roberto Savio, Roberto Bissio and Sean O Siochru to be considered by the CS coordination committee for the High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Roberto Savio cv is available here Roberto Bissio cv is available here ( with some more information on his work here ) Sean O Siochru cv is available here Roberto Savio is one the foremost and senior-most global civil society activist in the area of communication and closely associated with the World Social Forum. Roberto Bissio is one of the foremost and senior-most global civil society activist in the area of development policy, and closely associated with all the UN processes on development, including the MDG plus 15 process. He also coordinates the secretariat of Social Watch, an international network of citizen organizations from around the world that report every year on how governments and international organizations implement their commitments on poverty eradication and gender equity. Sean O Siochru spear-headed the Communications Rights in the Information Society or CRIS movement, which was very prominent civil society movement during the WSIS. He is a well known communication rights activists and has worked on may development projects. I have taken their consent for this nomination. Thanks, and let me know if anything else is needed from my side. regards Guru -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change /In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC/ www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 13:02:19 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:02:19 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF 2014: Request for Public Input Message-ID: *Request for public input*: All stakeholders are encouraged to submit suggestions or ideas for issues to be discussed at the 2014 IGF to the following email address: < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >IGF2014si at intgovforum.org. We kindly request that proposals are kept short and succinct. These proposals will be put into a synthesis paper that will act as an input into the discussions. The deadline for submission is* 10 February 2014.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 13:05:53 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:05:53 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF 2014: Request for Public Input Message-ID: *Request for public input*: All stakeholders are encouraged to submit suggestions or ideas for issues to be discussed at the 2014 IGF to the following email address: < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >IGF2014si at intgovforum.org. We kindly request that proposals are kept short and succinct. These proposals will be put into a synthesis paper that will act as an input into the discussions. The deadline for submission is* 10 February 2014.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Jan 15 15:19:15 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:19:15 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> Message-ID: I join Izumi and all others in thanking the NomCom for taking up a difficult task and completing this process in such a good manner. I am thankful for the trust and will give my very best to carry out the tasks ahead. Rolling up my sleeves here and looking forward to the next steps and to our discussions :) Marília On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > +1. > > Especially for the hard and difficult work of the Nomcom and its Chair. > > izumi > > > 2014/1/15 William Drake > >> Hi >> >> Excellent group, congrats to the nomcom! >> >> Bill >> >> On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil >> Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks >> to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this >> collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list >> of names for consideration >> >> *High Level Committee* >> >> Jovan Kurbalija >> Stephanie Perrin >> Louis Pouzin >> >> *Executive Multistakeholder Committee* >> >> Adam Peake >> Marilia Maciel >> >> Biographical details appear below. >> >> The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC >> and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for >> nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best >> Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and >> including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations >> were denied full consideration. >> >> The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists >> some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers >> who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and >> making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant >> challenge. >> >> The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo >> Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin >> Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. >> >> We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. >> We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our >> criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, >> advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular >> was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very >> strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations >> and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and >> advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues >> of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. >> >> Biographical details are below. >> >> >> Ian Peter (non voting Chair) >> >> BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS >> >> *Dr Jovan Kurbalija* is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is >> a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in >> international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he >> established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of >> Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of >> successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved >> into DiploFoundation. >> >> Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and >> lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United >> States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main >> areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international >> Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and >> diplomatic law. >> >> *Stephanie Perrin* is recognized as an international expert in privacy >> and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting >> doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie >> is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the >> ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last >> year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian >> Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director >> of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as >> Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for >> the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has >> worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues >> internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, >> the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. >> >> *Louis Pouzin* is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the >> Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network >> in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, >> later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several >> associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has >> received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the >> Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and >> has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a >> founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance >> discussions. >> >> *Adam Peake* is a senior researcher at the Center for Global >> Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on >> telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities >> for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been >> active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of >> the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and >> deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, >> and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on >> telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and >> Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at >> the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the >> Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> *Marília Maciel* works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and >> also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the >> Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura >> Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes >> intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She >> also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related >> Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). >> Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal >> University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of >> Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity >> Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a >> member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals >> from different countries who have joined together with the concern to >> enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> *********************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Jan 15 15:36:21 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:36:21 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Joana, Yes the PCLOB reports should have recommendations, which potentially Congress or the White House would take up. PCLOB was created to advise the President, but there should be proposals that would require Congressional action. But considering Obama is making a major speech before PCLOB releases its findings and recommendations, their significance may be diminished. Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about rights of "foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold) I hope this is helpful. All the best, Deborah http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper-surveillance-court.html?hp *Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance* By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014 President Obama spoke to reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White House on Tuesday morning. Mr. Obama’s speech on spying guidelines is scheduled for Friday. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue new guidelines on Friday to curtail government surveillance, but will not embrace the most far-reaching proposals of his own advisers and will ask Congress to help decide some of the toughest issues, according to people briefed on his thinking. Mr. Obama plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, *call for privacy safeguards for foreigners* and propose the creation of a public advocate to represent privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. But he will not endorse leaving bulk data in the custody of telecommunications firms, nor will he require court permission for all so-called national security letters seeking business records. The emerging approach, described by current and former government officials who insisted on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely anticipated speech, suggested a president trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign leaders and advocates of civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies. The result seems to be a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the spirit of reform and keeps the door open to changes later. *The decision to provide additional privacy protections for non-American citizens or residents, for instance, largely codifies existing practices but will be followed by a 180-day study by the director of national intelligence about whether to go further. *Likewise, instead of taking the storage of bulk data out of government hands, as recommended by a review panel he appointed, Mr. Obama will leave it in place for now and ask lawmakers to weigh in. The blend of decisions, to be outlined in a speech at the Justice Department and in a presidential guidelines memorandum, will be Mr. Obama’s highest-profile response to the disclosures about the National Security Agency made in recent months by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor who has fled to Russia. But as intelligence officials have sorted through Mr. Obama’s evolving position, they have been divided about how significant his adjustments will be. Some officials complained that the changes will add layers of cumbersome procedure that will hinder the hunt for potential terrorists, while others expressed relief that Mr. Obama is not going further and confidence that they could still work within the new guidelines without sacrificing much. “Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different direction?” asked one former government official who worked on intelligence issues. “That’s the question.” The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not comment further Tuesday. The developments came as the nation’s judiciary waded into the highly charged debate. In a letter made public on Tuesday, a judge designated by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to express the views of the judicial branch warned that some changes under consideration would have a negative “operational impact” on a secret foreign intelligence court. Judge John D. Bates, a former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, urged Mr. Obama and Congress not to alter the way the court is appointed or to create an independent public advocate to argue against the Justice Department in secret proceedings. Any such advocate, he wrote, should instead be appointed only when the court decided one was needed. Judge Bates objected to the workload of requiring that courts approve all national security letters, which are administrative subpoenas allowing the F.B.I. to obtain records about communications and financial transactions without court approval. And he raised concerns about greater public disclosure of court rulings, arguing that unclassified summaries would be “likely to promote confusion and misunderstanding.” The judge’s letter, versions of which he sent to the leaders of several congressional committees, was released as all five members of Mr. Obama’s surveillance review group testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeking support for their recommendations. Illustrating the cross-pressures on the president, the advisers argued for the appointment of the independent version of a public advocate, a recommendation the president is expected to follow, though it is not clear how he will structure the position. “We admire Judge Bates and respect his views,” said Cass R. Sunstein, of Harvard Law School and a former Obama White House official who served on the review panel. “We respectfully disagree with that one, on the ground that the judge sometimes is not in the ideal position to know whether a particular view needs representation and that in our tradition, standardly, the judge doesn’t decide whether one or another view gets a lawyer.” The judge’s objection to the proposal on national security letters dovetailed with that of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who argued it would be inefficient to have to go to a judge each time records were sought. Mr. Obama has decided not to require court approval in every case, but might still require it in some circumstances, according to one administration official. Mr. Obama will cut back on the number of people whose phone records can be examined by the N.S.A. through its bulk data program. Currently the agency can scrutinize call records of people as far as three steps, or “hops,” removed from a suspect. Mr. Obama’s review panel proposed limiting searches to people just two steps removed. He is also likely to cut down the number of years such data can be retained; currently it is deleted after five years. But the president will not, at least for now, back the panel’s suggestion that telecommunications firms keep such data and that the government be allowed to tap into those databases only when necessary. Intelligence officials complained it would be inefficient to have to go to multiple companies, so some officials proposed creating an independent consortium to store the data instead. Mr. Obama has decided against keeping the data at the private providers because they do not want that responsibility, officials said, and no independent consortium currently exists. As a result, he will ask Congress to work with him to determine the best way to store the data. He also appears likely to reject the idea of separating code breakers and code makers. Some critics of the N.S.A. were disturbed that the agency’s encryption team charged with bolstering online security systems against hackers was working with the team that tries to penetrate computer systems used by terrorists. The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific comments about possible surveillance reforms. It is highly unusual for judges to weigh in on public policy debates involving the other two branches of government, but Judge Bates, the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court, said that Chief Justice Roberts had designated him to “act as a liaison” and that he had consulted other judges. The judge emphasized that his comments were meant to address smooth operation of the court and were “not intended as expressions of support or opposition to particular introduced bills.” Still, his comments went beyond workload issues. He objected to a proposal by Mr. Obama’s review group to take away Chief Justice Roberts’s sole power to appoint the 11 judges of the surveillance court and have them picked instead by the chief judges of the appeals courts. Ten of the 11 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and critics have called for more diversity. “The chief justice is uniquely positioned to select qualified judges,” Judge Bates argued. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info. > Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I > suppose it will bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too > basic, but what can be the height for a report such as this? Is there any > process within the US gov in face of it? > Best > Joana > On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I >> don't think have been circulate here yet): >> >> - President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform >> this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be >> streamed. >> - The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be >> issuing two separate reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. >> - The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section >> 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court >> (FISC). It should be officially released on 23 January and "public and >> unclassified". >> - The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. >> persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be >> public, it will rely on analysis of classified material and may have a >> classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could make it >> more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the targeting of >> so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not >> yet known. >> >> Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed >> a letter (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its >> public comment period, urging the body to make recommendations to ensure >> that surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 meets >> international human rights standards. >> >> Below is a blog from Access with some more information. >> >> Kind regards, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless >> Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? 11:56am | 14 January >> 2014 | by *Drew Mitnick* >> >> *Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be >> public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends >> at OpenTheGovernment.org for this >> information.* >> >> Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) >> released a statement detailing >> plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA surveillance >> programs. The Board will release one report on metadata collection under >> PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court >> (FISC), expected in late January or early February, and a second report on >> the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702, with an >> indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel >> report >> by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications >> Technologies, released in December 2013. >> >> PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. >> First and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific >> recommendations that were lacking >> in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 >> be public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the >> Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of evidence that none of these >> answers are yes. >> >> *Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth?* >> >> Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office >> of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent >> agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the President on civil liberties >> in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has so far been >> underutilized >> and hamstrung. >> The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only full-time >> position, until May of last year. >> PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, but have >> been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena power, and requisite >> security clearances. >> And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a fundamental fact >> remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has zero enforcement >> power >> . >> >> The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment >> by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the >> PCLOB was not up for the task of effective oversight as currently >> structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27 included a call to >> increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the >> name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or >> perhaps, “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow >> authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass foreign >> intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate of FISA programs. >> >> *Will we see a public report on Section 702?* >> >> The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews >> of Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced >> in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement may >> provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be >> “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention >> of a public release, while stating that the report will address “classified >> materials.” The programs conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the >> greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the >> least about. Some of the weakest parts of >> the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on >> treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains >> classified, efforts to reform these programs will be severely hindered. We >> urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on Section 702 >> programs. >> >> *Will Obama even listen?* >> >> Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, >> there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will give weight to >> their recommendations. President Obama has announced he will make a speech >> on his proposed surveillance reforms on January 17th, just days before >> the first PCLOB report drops >> . This timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any >> criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, while >> simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on reform >> efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 >> programs? Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after >> the President’s speech, these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim >> scenario for the rights of non-US persons. >> >> *What does this mean?* >> >> In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment period >> this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of >> recommendations, including some recommending greater rights protections for >> non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the Section 702 programs. At the >> time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of others -- would >> be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret >> review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces >> the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance >> programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with the public debate that >> precipitated the review, and will almost certainly fail to effect any >> meaningful or accountable change. >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 15 18:25:50 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:25:50 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Deborah, is this summation before or after http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/ It seems that Obama is being pressured by various lobby groups and powerful forces and I wonder how predictable any outcome is at this stage. I just went to www.whitehouse.gov and submitted a few comments urging the President to be strong – for the sake of US standing in the world, the economic performance of US tech companies, and the citizens of the world. Might be time to lobby as much last minute persuasion as we can muster... Ian Peter From: Deborah Brown Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:36 AM To: Joana Varon Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports Hi Joana, Yes the PCLOB reports should have recommendations, which potentially Congress or the White House would take up. PCLOB was created to advise the President, but there should be proposals that would require Congressional action. But considering Obama is making a major speech before PCLOB releases its findings and recommendations, their significance may be diminished. Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about rights of "foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold) I hope this is helpful. All the best, Deborah http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper-surveillance-court.html?hp Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014 President Obama spoke to reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White House on Tuesday morning. Mr. Obama’s speech on spying guidelines is scheduled for Friday. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue new guidelines on Friday to curtail government surveillance, but will not embrace the most far-reaching proposals of his own advisers and will ask Congress to help decide some of the toughest issues, according to people briefed on his thinking. Mr. Obama plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, call for privacy safeguards for foreigners and propose the creation of a public advocate to represent privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. But he will not endorse leaving bulk data in the custody of telecommunications firms, nor will he require court permission for all so-called national security letters seeking business records. The emerging approach, described by current and former government officials who insisted on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely anticipated speech, suggested a president trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign leaders and advocates of civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies. The result seems to be a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the spirit of reform and keeps the door open to changes later. The decision to provide additional privacy protections for non-American citizens or residents, for instance, largely codifies existing practices but will be followed by a 180-day study by the director of national intelligence about whether to go further. Likewise, instead of taking the storage of bulk data out of government hands, as recommended by a review panel he appointed, Mr. Obama will leave it in place for now and ask lawmakers to weigh in. The blend of decisions, to be outlined in a speech at the Justice Department and in a presidential guidelines memorandum, will be Mr. Obama’s highest-profile response to the disclosures about the National Security Agency made in recent months by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor who has fled to Russia. But as intelligence officials have sorted through Mr. Obama’s evolving position, they have been divided about how significant his adjustments will be. Some officials complained that the changes will add layers of cumbersome procedure that will hinder the hunt for potential terrorists, while others expressed relief that Mr. Obama is not going further and confidence that they could still work within the new guidelines without sacrificing much. “Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different direction?” asked one former government official who worked on intelligence issues. “That’s the question.” The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not comment further Tuesday. The developments came as the nation’s judiciary waded into the highly charged debate. In a letter made public on Tuesday, a judge designated by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to express the views of the judicial branch warned that some changes under consideration would have a negative “operational impact” on a secret foreign intelligence court. Judge John D. Bates, a former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, urged Mr. Obama and Congress not to alter the way the court is appointed or to create an independent public advocate to argue against the Justice Department in secret proceedings. Any such advocate, he wrote, should instead be appointed only when the court decided one was needed. Judge Bates objected to the workload of requiring that courts approve all national security letters, which are administrative subpoenas allowing the F.B.I. to obtain records about communications and financial transactions without court approval. And he raised concerns about greater public disclosure of court rulings, arguing that unclassified summaries would be “likely to promote confusion and misunderstanding.” The judge’s letter, versions of which he sent to the leaders of several congressional committees, was released as all five members of Mr. Obama’s surveillance review group testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeking support for their recommendations. Illustrating the cross-pressures on the president, the advisers argued for the appointment of the independent version of a public advocate, a recommendation the president is expected to follow, though it is not clear how he will structure the position. “We admire Judge Bates and respect his views,” said Cass R. Sunstein, of Harvard Law School and a former Obama White House official who served on the review panel. “We respectfully disagree with that one, on the ground that the judge sometimes is not in the ideal position to know whether a particular view needs representation and that in our tradition, standardly, the judge doesn’t decide whether one or another view gets a lawyer.” The judge’s objection to the proposal on national security letters dovetailed with that of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who argued it would be inefficient to have to go to a judge each time records were sought. Mr. Obama has decided not to require court approval in every case, but might still require it in some circumstances, according to one administration official. Mr. Obama will cut back on the number of people whose phone records can be examined by the N.S.A. through its bulk data program. Currently the agency can scrutinize call records of people as far as three steps, or “hops,” removed from a suspect. Mr. Obama’s review panel proposed limiting searches to people just two steps removed. He is also likely to cut down the number of years such data can be retained; currently it is deleted after five years. But the president will not, at least for now, back the panel’s suggestion that telecommunications firms keep such data and that the government be allowed to tap into those databases only when necessary. Intelligence officials complained it would be inefficient to have to go to multiple companies, so some officials proposed creating an independent consortium to store the data instead. Mr. Obama has decided against keeping the data at the private providers because they do not want that responsibility, officials said, and no independent consortium currently exists. As a result, he will ask Congress to work with him to determine the best way to store the data. He also appears likely to reject the idea of separating code breakers and code makers. Some critics of the N.S.A. were disturbed that the agency’s encryption team charged with bolstering online security systems against hackers was working with the team that tries to penetrate computer systems used by terrorists. The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific comments about possible surveillance reforms. It is highly unusual for judges to weigh in on public policy debates involving the other two branches of government, but Judge Bates, the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court, said that Chief Justice Roberts had designated him to “act as a liaison” and that he had consulted other judges. The judge emphasized that his comments were meant to address smooth operation of the court and were “not intended as expressions of support or opposition to particular introduced bills.” Still, his comments went beyond workload issues. He objected to a proposal by Mr. Obama’s review group to take away Chief Justice Roberts’s sole power to appoint the 11 judges of the surveillance court and have them picked instead by the chief judges of the appeals courts. Ten of the 11 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and critics have called for more diversity. “The chief justice is uniquely positioned to select qualified judges,” Judge Bates argued. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joana Varon wrote: Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info. Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I suppose it will bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too basic, but what can be the height for a report such as this? Is there any process within the US gov in face of it? Best Joana On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" wrote: Dear all, There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I don't think have been circulate here yet): a.. President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be streamed. b.. The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing two separate reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. a.. The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be officially released on 23 January and "public and unclassified". b.. The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on analysis of classified material and may have a classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not yet known. Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed a letter (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its public comment period, urging the body to make recommendations to ensure that surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 meets international human rights standards. Below is a blog from Access with some more information. Kind regards, Deborah https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? 11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by Drew Mitnick Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at OpenTheGovernment.org for this information. Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) released a statement detailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA surveillance programs. The Board will release one report on metadata collection under PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January or early February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702, with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel report by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, released in December 2013. PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. First and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific recommendations that were lacking in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of evidence that none of these answers are yes. Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth? Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has so far been underutilized and hamstrung. The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only full-time position, until May of last year. PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, but have been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena power, and requisite security clearances. And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has zero enforcement power. The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the PCLOB was not up for the task of effective oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27 included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or perhaps, “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass foreign intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate of FISA programs. Will we see a public report on Section 702? The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews of Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention of a public release, while stating that the report will address “classified materials.” The programs conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the least about. Some of the weakest parts of the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains classified, efforts to reform these programs will be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on Section 702 programs. Will Obama even listen? Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will give weight to their recommendations. President Obama has announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance reforms on January 17th, just days before the first PCLOB report drops. This timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 programs? Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after the President’s speech, these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the rights of non-US persons. What does this mean? In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment period this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of recommendations, including some recommending greater rights protections for non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of others -- would be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with the public debate that precipitated the review, and will almost certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change. -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 16 00:34:18 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:34:18 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38CC71B06AB34B889DDA97C740E5BAE8@Toshiba> nice to see ISOC getting in on the act too.. http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-urges-president-obama-effect-%E2%80%98immediate-and-meaningful%E2%80%99-changes-us-government From: Deborah Brown Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:30 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports Hi Ian, I find the headline "US judiciary rejects NSA reform proposals from Obama’s review group" of the article a bit misleading. I don't think the letter from Judge Bates constitutes a rejection on behalf of the U.S. Judiciary, as influential or respected he might be. The NYT article I sent did take into account Bates' letter and offered a dissenting view (by Cass R. Sunstein). Others here may have more insight into the importance of Bates' letter. I agree with you that now may be the time for last minute pressure, and I would add for the sake of international human rights to your list :) All the best, Deborah On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Deborah, is this summation before or after http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/ It seems that Obama is being pressured by various lobby groups and powerful forces and I wonder how predictable any outcome is at this stage. I just went to www.whitehouse.gov and submitted a few comments urging the President to be strong – for the sake of US standing in the world, the economic performance of US tech companies, and the citizens of the world. Might be time to lobby as much last minute persuasion as we can muster... Ian Peter From: Deborah Brown Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:36 AM To: Joana Varon Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports Hi Joana, Yes the PCLOB reports should have recommendations, which potentially Congress or the White House would take up. PCLOB was created to advise the President, but there should be proposals that would require Congressional action. But considering Obama is making a major speech before PCLOB releases its findings and recommendations, their significance may be diminished. Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about rights of "foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold) I hope this is helpful. All the best, Deborah http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper-surveillance-court.html?hp Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014 President Obama spoke to reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White House on Tuesday morning. Mr. Obama’s speech on spying guidelines is scheduled for Friday. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue new guidelines on Friday to curtail government surveillance, but will not embrace the most far-reaching proposals of his own advisers and will ask Congress to help decide some of the toughest issues, according to people briefed on his thinking. Mr. Obama plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, call for privacy safeguards for foreigners and propose the creation of a public advocate to represent privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. But he will not endorse leaving bulk data in the custody of telecommunications firms, nor will he require court permission for all so-called national security letters seeking business records. The emerging approach, described by current and former government officials who insisted on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely anticipated speech, suggested a president trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign leaders and advocates of civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies. The result seems to be a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the spirit of reform and keeps the door open to changes later. The decision to provide additional privacy protections for non-American citizens or residents, for instance, largely codifies existing practices but will be followed by a 180-day study by the director of national intelligence about whether to go further. Likewise, instead of taking the storage of bulk data out of government hands, as recommended by a review panel he appointed, Mr. Obama will leave it in place for now and ask lawmakers to weigh in. The blend of decisions, to be outlined in a speech at the Justice Department and in a presidential guidelines memorandum, will be Mr. Obama’s highest-profile response to the disclosures about the National Security Agency made in recent months by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor who has fled to Russia. But as intelligence officials have sorted through Mr. Obama’s evolving position, they have been divided about how significant his adjustments will be. Some officials complained that the changes will add layers of cumbersome procedure that will hinder the hunt for potential terrorists, while others expressed relief that Mr. Obama is not going further and confidence that they could still work within the new guidelines without sacrificing much. “Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different direction?” asked one former government official who worked on intelligence issues. “That’s the question.” The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not comment further Tuesday. The developments came as the nation’s judiciary waded into the highly charged debate. In a letter made public on Tuesday, a judge designated by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to express the views of the judicial branch warned that some changes under consideration would have a negative “operational impact” on a secret foreign intelligence court. Judge John D. Bates, a former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, urged Mr. Obama and Congress not to alter the way the court is appointed or to create an independent public advocate to argue against the Justice Department in secret proceedings. Any such advocate, he wrote, should instead be appointed only when the court decided one was needed. Judge Bates objected to the workload of requiring that courts approve all national security letters, which are administrative subpoenas allowing the F.B.I. to obtain records about communications and financial transactions without court approval. And he raised concerns about greater public disclosure of court rulings, arguing that unclassified summaries would be “likely to promote confusion and misunderstanding.” The judge’s letter, versions of which he sent to the leaders of several congressional committees, was released as all five members of Mr. Obama’s surveillance review group testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeking support for their recommendations. Illustrating the cross-pressures on the president, the advisers argued for the appointment of the independent version of a public advocate, a recommendation the president is expected to follow, though it is not clear how he will structure the position. “We admire Judge Bates and respect his views,” said Cass R. Sunstein, of Harvard Law School and a former Obama White House official who served on the review panel. “We respectfully disagree with that one, on the ground that the judge sometimes is not in the ideal position to know whether a particular view needs representation and that in our tradition, standardly, the judge doesn’t decide whether one or another view gets a lawyer.” The judge’s objection to the proposal on national security letters dovetailed with that of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who argued it would be inefficient to have to go to a judge each time records were sought. Mr. Obama has decided not to require court approval in every case, but might still require it in some circumstances, according to one administration official. Mr. Obama will cut back on the number of people whose phone records can be examined by the N.S.A. through its bulk data program. Currently the agency can scrutinize call records of people as far as three steps, or “hops,” removed from a suspect. Mr. Obama’s review panel proposed limiting searches to people just two steps removed. He is also likely to cut down the number of years such data can be retained; currently it is deleted after five years. But the president will not, at least for now, back the panel’s suggestion that telecommunications firms keep such data and that the government be allowed to tap into those databases only when necessary. Intelligence officials complained it would be inefficient to have to go to multiple companies, so some officials proposed creating an independent consortium to store the data instead. Mr. Obama has decided against keeping the data at the private providers because they do not want that responsibility, officials said, and no independent consortium currently exists. As a result, he will ask Congress to work with him to determine the best way to store the data. He also appears likely to reject the idea of separating code breakers and code makers. Some critics of the N.S.A. were disturbed that the agency’s encryption team charged with bolstering online security systems against hackers was working with the team that tries to penetrate computer systems used by terrorists. The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific comments about possible surveillance reforms. It is highly unusual for judges to weigh in on public policy debates involving the other two branches of government, but Judge Bates, the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court, said that Chief Justice Roberts had designated him to “act as a liaison” and that he had consulted other judges. The judge emphasized that his comments were meant to address smooth operation of the court and were “not intended as expressions of support or opposition to particular introduced bills.” Still, his comments went beyond workload issues. He objected to a proposal by Mr. Obama’s review group to take away Chief Justice Roberts’s sole power to appoint the 11 judges of the surveillance court and have them picked instead by the chief judges of the appeals courts. Ten of the 11 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and critics have called for more diversity. “The chief justice is uniquely positioned to select qualified judges,” Judge Bates argued. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joana Varon wrote: Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info. Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I suppose it will bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too basic, but what can be the height for a report such as this? Is there any process within the US gov in face of it? Best Joana On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" wrote: Dear all, There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I don't think have been circulate here yet): a.. President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be streamed. b.. The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing two separate reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. a.. The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be officially released on 23 January and "public and unclassified". b.. The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on analysis of classified material and may have a classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not yet known. Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed a letter (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its public comment period, urging the body to make recommendations to ensure that surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 meets international human rights standards. Below is a blog from Access with some more information. Kind regards, Deborah https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? 11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by Drew Mitnick Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at OpenTheGovernment.org for this information. Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) released a statement detailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA surveillance programs. The Board will release one report on metadata collection under PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January or early February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702, with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel report by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, released in December 2013. PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. First and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific recommendations that were lacking in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of evidence that none of these answers are yes. Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth? Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has so far been underutilized and hamstrung. The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only full-time position, until May of last year. PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, but have been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena power, and requisite security clearances. And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has zero enforcement power. The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the PCLOB was not up for the task of effective oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27 included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or perhaps, “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass foreign intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate of FISA programs. Will we see a public report on Section 702? The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews of Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention of a public release, while stating that the report will address “classified materials.” The programs conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the least about. Some of the weakest parts of the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains classified, efforts to reform these programs will be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on Section 702 programs. Will Obama even listen? Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will give weight to their recommendations. President Obama has announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance reforms on January 17th, just days before the first PCLOB report drops. This timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 programs? Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after the President’s speech, these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the rights of non-US persons. What does this mean? In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment period this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of recommendations, including some recommending greater rights protections for non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of others -- would be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with the public debate that precipitated the review, and will almost certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change. -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jstyre at jstyre.com Thu Jan 16 00:51:05 2014 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 21:51:05 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: <38CC71B06AB34B889DDA97C740E5BAE8@Toshiba> References: <38CC71B06AB34B889DDA97C740E5BAE8@Toshiba> Message-ID: <04d901cf127f$00ac4470$0204cd50$@jstyre.com> Folks may be interested in EFF's scorecard. We'll be grading Obama after his Friday speech. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/scorecard-will-obama-hit-mark-real-nsa-reform -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Special Counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:34 PM To: Deborah Brown Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports nice to see ISOC getting in on the act too..   http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-urges-president-obama-effect-%E2%80%9 8immediate-and-meaningful%E2%80%99-changes-us-government       From: Deborah Brown Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:30 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports   Hi Ian,    I find the headline "US judiciary rejects NSA reform proposals from Obama’s review group" of the article a bit misleading.  I don't think the letter from Judge Bates constitutes a rejection on behalf of the U.S. Judiciary, as influential or respected he might be. The NYT article I sent did take into account Bates' letter and offered a dissenting view (by Cass R. Sunstein). Others here may have more insight into the importance of Bates' letter.   I agree with you that now may be the time for last minute pressure, and I would add for the sake of international human rights to your list :) All the best, Deborah   On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Deborah, is this summation before or after   http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/   It seems that Obama is being pressured by various lobby groups and powerful forces and I wonder how predictable any outcome is at this stage.   I just went to www.whitehouse.gov and submitted a few comments urging the President to be strong – for the sake of US standing in the world, the economic performance of US tech companies, and the citizens of the world. Might be time to lobby as much last minute persuasion as we can muster...   Ian Peter        From: Deborah Brown Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:36 AM To: Joana Varon Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports   Hi Joana, Yes the PCLOB reports should have recommendations, which potentially Congress or the White House would take up. PCLOB was created to advise the President, but there should be proposals that would require Congressional action. But considering Obama is making a major speech before PCLOB releases its findings and recommendations, their significance may be diminished.    Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about rights of "foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold)   I hope this is helpful.   All the best, Deborah   http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper -surveillance-court.html?hp   Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014   President Obama spoke to reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White House on Tuesday morning. Mr. Obama’s speech on spying guidelines is scheduled for Friday. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times     WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue new guidelines on Friday to curtail government surveillance, but will not embrace the most far-reaching proposals of his own advisers and will ask Congress to help decide some of the toughest issues, according to people briefed on his thinking.   Mr. Obama plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, call for privacy safeguards for foreigners and propose the creation of a public advocate to represent privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. But he will not endorse leaving bulk data in the custody of telecommunications firms, nor will he require court permission for all so-called national security letters seeking business records.   The emerging approach, described by current and former government officials who insisted on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely anticipated speech, suggested a president trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign leaders and advocates of civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies. The result seems to be a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the spirit of reform and keeps the door open to changes later.   The decision to provide additional privacy protections for non-American citizens or residents, for instance, largely codifies existing practices but will be followed by a 180-day study by the director of national intelligence about whether to go further. Likewise, instead of taking the storage of bulk data out of government hands, as recommended by a review panel he appointed, Mr. Obama will leave it in place for now and ask lawmakers to weigh in.   The blend of decisions, to be outlined in a speech at the Justice Department and in a presidential guidelines memorandum, will be Mr. Obama’s highest-profile response to the disclosures about the National Security Agency made in recent months by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor who has fled to Russia.   But as intelligence officials have sorted through Mr. Obama’s evolving position, they have been divided about how significant his adjustments will be.   Some officials complained that the changes will add layers of cumbersome procedure that will hinder the hunt for potential terrorists, while others expressed relief that Mr. Obama is not going further and confidence that they could still work within the new guidelines without sacrificing much.   “Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different direction?” asked one former government official who worked on intelligence issues. “That’s the question.”   The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not comment further Tuesday.   The developments came as the nation’s judiciary waded into the highly charged debate. In a letter made public on Tuesday, a judge designated by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to express the views of the judicial branch warned that some changes under consideration would have a negative “operational impact” on a secret foreign intelligence court.   Judge John D. Bates, a former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, urged Mr. Obama and Congress not to alter the way the court is appointed or to create an independent public advocate to argue against the Justice Department in secret proceedings. Any such advocate, he wrote, should instead be appointed only when the court decided one was needed.   Judge Bates objected to the workload of requiring that courts approve all national security letters, which are administrative subpoenas allowing the F.B.I. to obtain records about communications and financial transactions without court approval.   And he raised concerns about greater public disclosure of court rulings, arguing that unclassified summaries would be “likely to promote confusion and misunderstanding.”   The judge’s letter, versions of which he sent to the leaders of several congressional committees, was released as all five members of Mr. Obama’s surveillance review group testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeking support for their recommendations.   Illustrating the cross-pressures on the president, the advisers argued for the appointment of the independent version of a public advocate, a recommendation the president is expected to follow, though it is not clear how he will structure the position.   “We admire Judge Bates and respect his views,” said Cass R. Sunstein, of Harvard Law School and a former Obama White House official who served on the review panel. “We respectfully disagree with that one, on the ground that the judge sometimes is not in the ideal position to know whether a particular view needs representation and that in our tradition, standardly, the judge doesn’t decide whether one or another view gets a lawyer.”   The judge’s objection to the proposal on national security letters dovetailed with that of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who argued it would be inefficient to have to go to a judge each time records were sought. Mr. Obama has decided not to require court approval in every case, but might still require it in some circumstances, according to one administration official.   Mr. Obama will cut back on the number of people whose phone records can be examined by the N.S.A. through its bulk data program. Currently the agency can scrutinize call records of people as far as three steps, or “hops,” removed from a suspect. Mr. Obama’s review panel proposed limiting searches to people just two steps removed. He is also likely to cut down the number of years such data can be retained; currently it is deleted after five years.   But the president will not, at least for now, back the panel’s suggestion that telecommunications firms keep such data and that the government be allowed to tap into those databases only when necessary.   Intelligence officials complained it would be inefficient to have to go to multiple companies, so some officials proposed creating an independent consortium to store the data instead.   Mr. Obama has decided against keeping the data at the private providers because they do not want that responsibility, officials said, and no independent consortium currently exists. As a result, he will ask Congress to work with him to determine the best way to store the data.   He also appears likely to reject the idea of separating code breakers and code makers. Some critics of the N.S.A. were disturbed that the agency’s encryption team charged with bolstering online security systems against hackers was working with the team that tries to penetrate computer systems used by terrorists.   The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific comments about possible surveillance reforms.   It is highly unusual for judges to weigh in on public policy debates involving the other two branches of government, but Judge Bates, the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court, said that Chief Justice Roberts had designated him to “act as a liaison” and that he had consulted other judges.   The judge emphasized that his comments were meant to address smooth operation of the court and were “not intended as expressions of support or opposition to particular introduced bills.”   Still, his comments went beyond workload issues. He objected to a proposal by Mr. Obama’s review group to take away Chief Justice Roberts’s sole power to appoint the 11 judges of the surveillance court and have them picked instead by the chief judges of the appeals courts.   Ten of the 11 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and critics have called for more diversity. “The chief justice is uniquely positioned to select qualified judges,” Judge Bates argued. On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joana Varon wrote: Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info. Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I suppose it will bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too basic, but what can be the height for a report such as this? Is there any process within the US gov in face of it? Best Joana On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" wrote: Dear all,    There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I don't think have been circulate here yet): • President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be streamed. • The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing two separate reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated.  o The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be officially released on 23 January and "public and unclassified". o The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on analysis of classified material and may have a classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not yet known. Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed a letter  (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its public comment period, urging the body to make recommendations to ensure that surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 meets international human rights standards.   Below is a blog from Access with some more information.   Kind regards, Deborah       https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? 11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by Drew Mitnick Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at OpenTheGovernment.org for this information. Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) released a statement detailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA surveillance programs. The Board will release one report on metadata collection under PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January or early February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702, with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel report by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, released in December 2013. PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. First and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific recommendations that were lacking in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of evidence that none of these answers are yes. Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth? Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has so far been underutilized and hamstrung. The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only full-time position, until May of last year. PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, but have been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena power, and requisite security clearances. And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has zero enforcement power. The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the PCLOB was not up for the task of effective oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27 included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or perhaps, “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass foreign intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate of FISA programs. Will we see a public report on Section 702? The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews of Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention of a public release, while stating that the report will address “classified materials.” The programs conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the least about. Some of the weakest parts of the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains classified, efforts to reform these programs will be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on Section 702 programs. Will Obama even listen? Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will give weight to their recommendations. President Obama has announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance reforms on January 17th, just days before the first PCLOB report drops. This timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 programs? Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after the President’s speech, these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the rights of non-US persons. What does this mean? In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment period this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of recommendations, including some recommending greater rights protections for non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of others -- would be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with the public debate that precipitated the review, and will almost certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change.   -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits   -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D ________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits   -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Jan 15 23:30:25 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:30:25 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ian, I find the headline "US judiciary rejects NSA reform proposals from Obama’s review group" of the article a bit misleading. I don't think the letter from Judge Bates constitutes a rejection on behalf of the U.S. Judiciary, as influential or respected he might be. The NYT article I sent did take into account Bates' letter and offered a dissenting view (by Cass R. Sunstein). Others here may have more insight into the importance of Bates' letter. I agree with you that now may be the time for last minute pressure, and I would add for the sake of international human rights to your list :) All the best, Deborah On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Deborah, is this summation before or after > > http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/ > > It seems that Obama is being pressured by various lobby groups and > powerful forces and I wonder how predictable any outcome is at this stage. > > I just went to www.whitehouse.gov and submitted a few comments urging the > President to be strong – for the sake of US standing in the world, the > economic performance of US tech companies, and the citizens of the world. > Might be time to lobby as much last minute persuasion as we can muster... > > Ian Peter > > > > *From:* Deborah Brown > *Sent:* Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:36 AM > *To:* Joana Varon > *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports > > Hi Joana, Yes the PCLOB reports should have recommendations, which > potentially Congress or the White House would take up. PCLOB was created to > advise the President, but there should be proposals that would require > Congressional action. But considering Obama is making a major speech before > PCLOB releases its findings and recommendations, their significance may be > diminished. > > Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about > rights of "foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold) > > I hope this is helpful. > > All the best, > Deborah > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper-surveillance-court.html?hp > > *Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance* > By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014 > > President Obama spoke to reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White > House on Tuesday morning. Mr. Obama’s speech on spying guidelines is > scheduled for Friday. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times > > > WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue new guidelines on Friday to > curtail government surveillance, but will not embrace the most far-reaching > proposals of his own advisers and will ask Congress to help decide some of > the toughest issues, according to people briefed on his thinking. > > Mr. Obama plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, *call > for privacy safeguards for foreigners* and propose the creation of a > public advocate to represent privacy concerns at a secret intelligence > court. But he will not endorse leaving bulk data in the custody of > telecommunications firms, nor will he require court permission for all > so-called national security letters seeking business records. > > The emerging approach, described by current and former government > officials who insisted on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely > anticipated speech, suggested a president trying to straddle a difficult > line in hopes of placating foreign leaders and advocates of civil liberties > without a backlash from national security agencies. The result seems to be > a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the > spirit of reform and keeps the door open to changes later. > > *The decision to provide additional privacy protections for non-American > citizens or residents, for instance, largely codifies existing practices > but will be followed by a 180-day study by the director of national > intelligence about whether to go further. *Likewise, instead of taking > the storage of bulk data out of government hands, as recommended by a > review panel he appointed, Mr. Obama will leave it in place for now and ask > lawmakers to weigh in. > > The blend of decisions, to be outlined in a speech at the Justice > Department and in a presidential guidelines memorandum, will be Mr. Obama’s > highest-profile response to the disclosures about the National Security > Agency made in recent months by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. > contractor who has fled to Russia. > > But as intelligence officials have sorted through Mr. Obama’s evolving > position, they have been divided about how significant his adjustments will > be. > > Some officials complained that the changes will add layers of cumbersome > procedure that will hinder the hunt for potential terrorists, while others > expressed relief that Mr. Obama is not going further and confidence that > they could still work within the new guidelines without sacrificing much. > > “Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different > direction?” asked one former government official who worked on intelligence > issues. “That’s the question.” > > The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not > comment further Tuesday. > > The developments came as the nation’s judiciary waded into the highly > charged debate. In a letter made public on Tuesday, a judge designated by > Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to express the views of the judicial > branch warned that some changes under consideration would have a negative > “operational impact” on a secret foreign intelligence court. > > Judge John D. Bates, a former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Court, urged Mr. Obama and Congress not to alter the way the > court is appointed or to create an independent public advocate to argue > against the Justice Department in secret proceedings. Any such advocate, he > wrote, should instead be appointed only when the court decided one was > needed. > > Judge Bates objected to the workload of requiring that courts approve all > national security letters, which are administrative subpoenas allowing the > F.B.I. to obtain records about communications and financial transactions > without court approval. > > And he raised concerns about greater public disclosure of court rulings, > arguing that unclassified summaries would be “likely to promote confusion > and misunderstanding.” > > The judge’s letter, versions of which he sent to the leaders of several > congressional committees, was released as all five members of Mr. Obama’s > surveillance review group testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary > Committee, seeking support for their recommendations. > > Illustrating the cross-pressures on the president, the advisers argued for > the appointment of the independent version of a public advocate, a > recommendation the president is expected to follow, though it is not clear > how he will structure the position. > > “We admire Judge Bates and respect his views,” said Cass R. Sunstein, of > Harvard Law School and a former Obama White House official who served on > the review panel. “We respectfully disagree with that one, on the ground > that the judge sometimes is not in the ideal position to know whether a > particular view needs representation and that in our tradition, standardly, > the judge doesn’t decide whether one or another view gets a lawyer.” > > The judge’s objection to the proposal on national security letters > dovetailed with that of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who argued it > would be inefficient to have to go to a judge each time records were > sought. Mr. Obama has decided not to require court approval in every case, > but might still require it in some circumstances, according to one > administration official. > > Mr. Obama will cut back on the number of people whose phone records can be > examined by the N.S.A. through its bulk data program. Currently the agency > can scrutinize call records of people as far as three steps, or “hops,” > removed from a suspect. Mr. Obama’s review panel proposed limiting searches > to people just two steps removed. He is also likely to cut down the number > of years such data can be retained; currently it is deleted after five > years. > > But the president will not, at least for now, back the panel’s suggestion > that telecommunications firms keep such data and that the government be > allowed to tap into those databases only when necessary. > > Intelligence officials complained it would be inefficient to have to go to > multiple companies, so some officials proposed creating an independent > consortium to store the data instead. > > Mr. Obama has decided against keeping the data at the private providers > because they do not want that responsibility, officials said, and no > independent consortium currently exists. As a result, he will ask Congress > to work with him to determine the best way to store the data. > > He also appears likely to reject the idea of separating code breakers and > code makers. Some critics of the N.S.A. were disturbed that the agency’s > encryption team charged with bolstering online security systems against > hackers was working with the team that tries to penetrate computer systems > used by terrorists. > > The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific > comments about possible surveillance reforms. > > It is highly unusual for judges to weigh in on public policy debates > involving the other two branches of government, but Judge Bates, the > director of the Administrative Office of the United States Court, said that > Chief Justice Roberts had designated him to “act as a liaison” and that he > had consulted other judges. > > The judge emphasized that his comments were meant to address smooth > operation of the court and were “not intended as expressions of support or > opposition to particular introduced bills.” > > Still, his comments went beyond workload issues. He objected to a proposal > by Mr. Obama’s review group to take away Chief Justice Roberts’s sole power > to appoint the 11 judges of the surveillance court and have them picked > instead by the chief judges of the appeals courts. > > Ten of the 11 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and > critics have called for more diversity. “The chief justice is uniquely > positioned to select qualified judges,” Judge Bates argued. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info. >> Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I >> suppose it will bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too >> basic, but what can be the height for a report such as this? Is there any >> process within the US gov in face of it? >> Best >> Joana >> On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and >>> I don't think have been circulate here yet): >>> >>> - President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform >>> this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be >>> streamed. >>> - The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be >>> issuing two separate reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. >>> - The first report will focus on metadata collection under >>> Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance >>> Court (FISC). It should be officially released on 23 January and "public >>> and unclassified". >>> - The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. >>> persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be >>> public, it will rely on analysis of classified material and may have a >>> classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could make it >>> more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the targeting of >>> so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not >>> yet known. >>> >>> Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed >>> a letter (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its >>> public comment period, urging the body to make recommendations to ensure >>> that surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 meets >>> international human rights standards. >>> >>> Below is a blog from Access with some more information. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless >>> Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? 11:56am | 14 January >>> 2014 | by *Drew Mitnick* >>> >>> *Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be >>> public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at >>> OpenTheGovernment.org for this >>> information.* >>> >>> Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board(PCLOB) released a >>> statementdetailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA >>> surveillance programs. The Board will release one report on metadata >>> collection under PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign Intelligence >>> Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January or early February, and >>> a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702, >>> with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a >>> parallel report >>> by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications >>> Technologies, released in December 2013. >>> >>> PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. >>> First and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific >>> recommendations that were lacking >>> in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 >>> be public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the >>> Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of evidence that none of these >>> answers are yes. >>> >>> *Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth?* >>> >>> Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office >>> of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent >>> agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the President on civil liberties >>> in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has so far been >>> underutilizedand >>> hamstrung. >>> The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only full-time >>> position, until May of last year. >>> PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, but have >>> been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena power, and requisite >>> security clearances. >>> And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a fundamental fact >>> remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has zero enforcement >>> power >>> . >>> >>> The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment >>> by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the >>> PCLOB was not up for the task of effective oversight as currently >>> structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27 included a call to >>> increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the >>> name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or >>> perhaps, “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow >>> authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass foreign >>> intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate of FISA programs. >>> >>> *Will we see a public report on Section 702?* >>> >>> The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews >>> of Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced >>> in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement may >>> provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be >>> “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention >>> of a public release, while stating that the report will address “classified >>> materials.” The programs conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the >>> greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the >>> least about. Some of the weakest partsof the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on >>> treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains >>> classified, efforts to reform these programs will be severely hindered. We >>> urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on Section 702 >>> programs. >>> >>> *Will Obama even listen?* >>> >>> Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, >>> there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will give weight to >>> their recommendations. President Obama has announced he will make a speech >>> on his proposed surveillance reforms on January 17th, just days before >>> the first PCLOB report drops >>> . This timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any >>> criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, while >>> simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on reform >>> efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 >>> programs? Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after >>> the President’s speech, these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim >>> scenario for the rights of non-US persons. >>> >>> *What does this mean?* >>> >>> In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and commentperiod this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of >>> recommendations, including some recommending greater rights protections for >>> non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the Section 702 programs. At the >>> time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of others -- would >>> be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret >>> review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces >>> the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance >>> programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with the public debate that >>> precipitated the review, and will almost certainly fail to effect any >>> meaningful or accountable change. >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Senior Policy Analyst >>> Access | accessnow.org >>> rightscon.org >>> >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org Thu Jan 16 07:47:45 2014 From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:47:45 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: <04d901cf127f$00ac4470$0204cd50$@jstyre.com> References: <38CC71B06AB34B889DDA97C740E5BAE8@Toshiba> <04d901cf127f$00ac4470$0204cd50$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: Hi all, Here is GNI's statement and recommendations in advance of the speech: http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/surveillance-reforms-protect-rights-and-restore-trust Also of interest may be this piece by Geoff King from CPJ: http://cpj.org/internet/2014/01/obamas-legacy-on-the-line-with-surveillance-policy.php Best, David On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:51 AM, James S. Tyre wrote: > Folks may be interested in EFF's scorecard. We'll be grading Obama after > his Friday > speech. > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/scorecard-will-obama-hit-mark-real-nsa-reform > > -- > James S. Tyre > Law Offices of James S. Tyre > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 > Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > jstyre at jstyre.com > Special Counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://www.eff.org > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On > Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:34 PM > To: Deborah Brown > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports > > nice to see ISOC getting in on the act too.. > > > http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-urges-president-obama-effect-%E2%80%9 > 8immediate-and-meaningful%E2%80%99-changes-us-government > > > > From: Deborah Brown > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:30 PM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports > > Hi Ian, > > I find the headline "US judiciary rejects NSA reform proposals from > Obama’s review group" > of the article a bit misleading. I don't think the letter from Judge > Bates constitutes a > rejection on behalf of the U.S. Judiciary, as influential or respected he > might be. The > NYT article I sent did take into account Bates' letter and offered a > dissenting view (by > Cass R. Sunstein). Others here may have more insight into the importance > of Bates' letter. > > I agree with you that now may be the time for last minute pressure, and I > would add for > the sake of international human rights to your list :) > All the best, > Deborah > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Deborah, is this summation before or after > > http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/ > > It seems that Obama is being pressured by various lobby groups and > powerful forces and I > wonder how predictable any outcome is at this stage. > > I just went to www.whitehouse.gov and submitted a few comments urging the > President to be > strong – for the sake of US standing in the world, the economic > performance of US tech > companies, and the citizens of the world. Might be time to lobby as much > last minute > persuasion as we can muster... > > Ian Peter > > > > From: Deborah Brown > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:36 AM > To: Joana Varon > Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports > > Hi Joana, Yes the PCLOB reports should have recommendations, which > potentially Congress or > the White House would take up. PCLOB was created to advise the President, > but there should > be proposals that would require Congressional action. But considering > Obama is making a > major speech before PCLOB releases its findings and recommendations, their > significance > may be diminished. > > Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about > rights of > "foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold) > > I hope this is helpful. > > All the best, > Deborah > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper > -surveillance-court.html?hp > > Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance > By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014 > > President Obama spoke to reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White > House on Tuesday > morning. Mr. Obama’s speech on spying guidelines is scheduled for Friday. > Stephen > Crowley/The New York Times > > > WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue new guidelines on Friday to > curtail government > surveillance, but will not embrace the most far-reaching proposals of his > own advisers and > will ask Congress to help decide some of the toughest issues, according to > people briefed > on his thinking. > > Mr. Obama plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, call > for privacy > safeguards for foreigners and propose the creation of a public advocate to > represent > privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. But he will not endorse > leaving bulk data > in the custody of telecommunications firms, nor will he require court > permission for all > so-called national security letters seeking business records. > > The emerging approach, described by current and former government > officials who insisted > on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely anticipated speech, > suggested a president > trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign leaders > and advocates of > civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies. The > result seems to be > a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the > spirit of reform and > keeps the door open to changes later. > > The decision to provide additional privacy protections for non-American > citizens or > residents, for instance, largely codifies existing practices but will be > followed by a > 180-day study by the director of national intelligence about whether to go > further. > Likewise, instead of taking the storage of bulk data out of government > hands, as > recommended by a review panel he appointed, Mr. Obama will leave it in > place for now and > ask lawmakers to weigh in. > > The blend of decisions, to be outlined in a speech at the Justice > Department and in a > presidential guidelines memorandum, will be Mr. Obama’s highest-profile > response to the > disclosures about the National Security Agency made in recent months by > Edward J. Snowden, > a former N.S.A. contractor who has fled to Russia. > > But as intelligence officials have sorted through Mr. Obama’s evolving > position, they have > been divided about how significant his adjustments will be. > > Some officials complained that the changes will add layers of cumbersome > procedure that > will hinder the hunt for potential terrorists, while others expressed > relief that Mr. > Obama is not going further and confidence that they could still work > within the new > guidelines without sacrificing much. > > “Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different > direction?” asked one > former government official who worked on intelligence issues. “That’s the > question.” > > The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not > comment further > Tuesday. > > The developments came as the nation’s judiciary waded into the highly > charged debate. In a > letter made public on Tuesday, a judge designated by Chief Justice John G. > Roberts Jr. to > express the views of the judicial branch warned that some changes under > consideration > would have a negative “operational impact” on a secret foreign > intelligence court. > > Judge John D. Bates, a former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Court, > urged Mr. Obama and Congress not to alter the way the court is appointed > or to create an > independent public advocate to argue against the Justice Department in > secret proceedings. > Any such advocate, he wrote, should instead be appointed only when the > court decided one > was needed. > > Judge Bates objected to the workload of requiring that courts approve all > national > security letters, which are administrative subpoenas allowing the F.B.I. > to obtain records > about communications and financial transactions without court approval. > > And he raised concerns about greater public disclosure of court rulings, > arguing that > unclassified summaries would be “likely to promote confusion and > misunderstanding.” > > The judge’s letter, versions of which he sent to the leaders of several > congressional > committees, was released as all five members of Mr. Obama’s surveillance > review group > testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeking support > for their > recommendations. > > Illustrating the cross-pressures on the president, the advisers argued for > the appointment > of the independent version of a public advocate, a recommendation the > president is > expected to follow, though it is not clear how he will structure the > position. > > “We admire Judge Bates and respect his views,” said Cass R. Sunstein, of > Harvard Law > School and a former Obama White House official who served on the review > panel. “We > respectfully disagree with that one, on the ground that the judge > sometimes is not in the > ideal position to know whether a particular view needs representation and > that in our > tradition, standardly, the judge doesn’t decide whether one or another > view gets a > lawyer.” > > The judge’s objection to the proposal on national security letters > dovetailed with that of > the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who argued it would be inefficient to > have to go to a > judge each time records were sought. Mr. Obama has decided not to require > court approval > in every case, but might still require it in some circumstances, according > to one > administration official. > > Mr. Obama will cut back on the number of people whose phone records can be > examined by the > N.S.A. through its bulk data program. Currently the agency can scrutinize > call records of > people as far as three steps, or “hops,” removed from a suspect. Mr. > Obama’s review panel > proposed limiting searches to people just two steps removed. He is also > likely to cut down > the number of years such data can be retained; currently it is deleted > after five years. > > But the president will not, at least for now, back the panel’s suggestion > that > telecommunications firms keep such data and that the government be allowed > to tap into > those databases only when necessary. > > Intelligence officials complained it would be inefficient to have to go to > multiple > companies, so some officials proposed creating an independent consortium > to store the data > instead. > > Mr. Obama has decided against keeping the data at the private providers > because they do > not want that responsibility, officials said, and no independent > consortium currently > exists. As a result, he will ask Congress to work with him to determine > the best way to > store the data. > > He also appears likely to reject the idea of separating code breakers and > code makers. > Some critics of the N.S.A. were disturbed that the agency’s encryption > team charged with > bolstering online security systems against hackers was working with the > team that tries to > penetrate computer systems used by terrorists. > > The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific > comments about > possible surveillance reforms. > > It is highly unusual for judges to weigh in on public policy debates > involving the other > two branches of government, but Judge Bates, the director of the > Administrative Office of > the United States Court, said that Chief Justice Roberts had designated > him to “act as a > liaison” and that he had consulted other judges. > > The judge emphasized that his comments were meant to address smooth > operation of the court > and were “not intended as expressions of support or opposition to > particular introduced > bills.” > > Still, his comments went beyond workload issues. He objected to a proposal > by Mr. Obama’s > review group to take away Chief Justice Roberts’s sole power to appoint > the 11 judges of > the surveillance court and have them picked instead by the chief judges of > the appeals > courts. > > Ten of the 11 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and > critics have > called for more diversity. “The chief justice is uniquely positioned to > select qualified > judges,” Judge Bates argued. > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joana Varon > wrote: > Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info. > Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I > suppose it will > bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too basic, but what > can be the > height for a report such as this? Is there any process within the US gov > in face of it? > Best > Joana > On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" wrote: > Dear all, > > There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I > don't think have > been circulate here yet): > • President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform this > Friday (17 > January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be streamed. > • The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing two > separate > reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. > o The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section 215 of > the PATRIOT Act > and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be > officially released > on 23 January and "public and unclassified". > o The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. persons", > Section 702 of the > FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on > analysis of > classified material and may have a classified annex. Classifying critical > elements of the > report could make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, > i.e. the > targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this > report is not yet > known. > Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed a > letter > (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its public > comment period, urging > the body to make recommendations to ensure that surveillance of > communications conducted > under Section 702 meets international human rights standards. > > Below is a blog from Access with some more information. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless > Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? > 11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by Drew Mitnick > Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be > public, though it may > have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at OpenTheGovernment.org > for this > information. > Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) > released a statement > detailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA > surveillance programs. The > Board will release one report on metadata collection under PATRIOT Act > Section 215 and the > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January > or early > February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under > FISA Section 702, > with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a > parallel > report by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications > Technologies, > released in December 2013. > PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. First > and foremost, > will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific recommendations that were > lacking in the > Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be public > or classified? If > the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the Obama administration > listen? There’s > plenty of evidence that none of these answers are yes. > Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth? > Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office > of the Director > of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent agency. It was > created in 2004 to > advise the President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat > terrorism, but has > so far been underutilized and hamstrung. The Senate failed to even approve > a chairman, the > Board’s only full-time position, until May of last year. PCLOB’s work > marginally increased > after the Snowden revelations, but have been hampered by a lack of budget, > staff, subpoena > power, and requisite security clearances. And even if these structural > deficits were > resolved, a fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the > PCLOB has zero > enforcement power. > The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment > by the recent > report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the PCLOB was not > up for the task > of effective oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s > Recommendation 27 > included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an > oversight body with the > name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or > perhaps, > “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow authority from > terrorism-related > policy issues to encompass foreign intelligence, in order to better align > with the mandate > of FISA programs. > Will we see a public report on Section 702? > The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews of > Section 215 and > 702 programs was quietly announced in December. Why two? The language of > the most recent > statement may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and > the FISC will be > “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention > of a public > release, while stating that the report will address “classified > materials.” The programs > conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact on > non-U.S. persons, and > are the ones we still know the least about. Some of the weakest parts of > the President’s > Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on treatment of non-US > persons under > Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains classified, efforts to reform > these programs will > be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of > its report on > Section 702 programs. > Will Obama even listen? > Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, > there’s little to > indicate the Obama administration will give weight to their > recommendations. President > Obama has announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance > reforms on January > 17th, just days before the first PCLOB report drops. This timing will > allow the > administration to get out ahead of any criticisms the PCLOB report may > make on the Section > 215 programs, while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to > be leading on > reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section > 702 programs? > Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after the > President’s speech, > these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the rights > of non-US > persons. > What does this mean? > In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment period > this past > autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of recommendations, > including some > recommending greater rights protections for non-US persons, specifically > pertaining to the > Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- and > those of dozens of > others -- would be the basis for a transparent public review and > recommendations. A secret > review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces > the cloak of > secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance programs > under Section 702, > is entirely at odds with the public debate that precipitated the review, > and will almost > certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change. > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > ________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- David Sullivan Policy and Communications Director Global Network Initiative Office: +1 202 741 5048 Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 PGP: 0x60D244AA @David_MSullivan GNI has moved, please note our new address: 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, DC 20036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Jan 16 09:40:36 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:40:36 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: References: <38CC71B06AB34B889DDA97C740E5BAE8@Toshiba> <04d901cf127f$00ac4470$0204cd50$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: Thank you all very much for the references. The fact that important networks and organizations are taking a clear stance and calling for reform is of ultimate importance. I particularly liked GNI's global approach emphasizing the rights of people of all nations. However, when I read news such as this one in the nyt ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0), I wonder if it is feasible to make a U turn. The investment the US government has made on surveillance technologies must have been huge and needs to be "payed back", like any other investment. That could happen in several forms, like gathering intelligence, accessing industrial secrets, collecting personal data and would give them an edge... The political and economic incentives to continue on this path are huge. And there is an emerging rhetoric of cold war with China that is scary... Security companies and the defense industry must be excited with this mood, in anticipation of profits... And even if the government publicly committs to reform appeasing advocates, how do we ensure that reform is being indeed carried out, when so much information is labled under national security, and therefore is kept secret? How to place security policies under public scrutiny and make policy makers accountable in this field? Am I being too pessimistic? I would like to hear from others, specially from US, and maybe "calibrate" my views. I would love to be wrong :) Marília On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Sullivan < dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Here is GNI's statement and recommendations in advance of the speech: > http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/surveillance-reforms-protect-rights-and-restore-trust > > Also of interest may be this piece by Geoff King from CPJ: > http://cpj.org/internet/2014/01/obamas-legacy-on-the-line-with-surveillance-policy.php > > Best, > David > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:51 AM, James S. Tyre wrote: > >> Folks may be interested in EFF's scorecard. We'll be grading Obama after >> his Friday >> speech. >> >> >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/scorecard-will-obama-hit-mark-real-nsa-reform >> >> -- >> James S. Tyre >> Law Offices of James S. Tyre >> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 >> Culver City, CA 90230-4969 >> 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) >> jstyre at jstyre.com >> Special Counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation >> https://www.eff.org >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On >> Behalf Of Ian Peter >> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:34 PM >> To: Deborah Brown >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports >> >> nice to see ISOC getting in on the act too.. >> >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-urges-president-obama-effect-%E2%80%9 >> 8immediate-and-meaningful%E2%80%99-changes-us-government >> >> >> >> From: Deborah Brown >> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:30 PM >> To: Ian Peter >> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> I find the headline "US judiciary rejects NSA reform proposals from >> Obama’s review group" >> of the article a bit misleading. I don't think the letter from Judge >> Bates constitutes a >> rejection on behalf of the U.S. Judiciary, as influential or respected he >> might be. The >> NYT article I sent did take into account Bates' letter and offered a >> dissenting view (by >> Cass R. Sunstein). Others here may have more insight into the importance >> of Bates' letter. >> >> I agree with you that now may be the time for last minute pressure, and I >> would add for >> the sake of international human rights to your list :) >> All the best, >> Deborah >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Ian Peter >> wrote: >> Hi Deborah, is this summation before or after >> >> http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/ >> >> It seems that Obama is being pressured by various lobby groups and >> powerful forces and I >> wonder how predictable any outcome is at this stage. >> >> I just went to www.whitehouse.gov and submitted a few comments urging >> the President to be >> strong – for the sake of US standing in the world, the economic >> performance of US tech >> companies, and the citizens of the world. Might be time to lobby as much >> last minute >> persuasion as we can muster... >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> From: Deborah Brown >> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:36 AM >> To: Joana Varon >> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports >> >> Hi Joana, Yes the PCLOB reports should have recommendations, which >> potentially Congress or >> the White House would take up. PCLOB was created to advise the President, >> but there should >> be proposals that would require Congressional action. But considering >> Obama is making a >> major speech before PCLOB releases its findings and recommendations, >> their significance >> may be diminished. >> >> Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about >> rights of >> "foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold) >> >> I hope this is helpful. >> >> All the best, >> Deborah >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper >> -surveillance-court.html?hp >> >> Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance >> By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014 >> >> President Obama spoke to reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White >> House on Tuesday >> morning. Mr. Obama’s speech on spying guidelines is scheduled for Friday. >> Stephen >> Crowley/The New York Times >> >> >> WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue new guidelines on Friday to >> curtail government >> surveillance, but will not embrace the most far-reaching proposals of his >> own advisers and >> will ask Congress to help decide some of the toughest issues, according >> to people briefed >> on his thinking. >> >> Mr. Obama plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, call >> for privacy >> safeguards for foreigners and propose the creation of a public advocate >> to represent >> privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. But he will not endorse >> leaving bulk data >> in the custody of telecommunications firms, nor will he require court >> permission for all >> so-called national security letters seeking business records. >> >> The emerging approach, described by current and former government >> officials who insisted >> on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely anticipated speech, >> suggested a president >> trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign leaders >> and advocates of >> civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies. The >> result seems to be >> a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the >> spirit of reform and >> keeps the door open to changes later. >> >> The decision to provide additional privacy protections for non-American >> citizens or >> residents, for instance, largely codifies existing practices but will be >> followed by a >> 180-day study by the director of national intelligence about whether to >> go further. >> Likewise, instead of taking the storage of bulk data out of government >> hands, as >> recommended by a review panel he appointed, Mr. Obama will leave it in >> place for now and >> ask lawmakers to weigh in. >> >> The blend of decisions, to be outlined in a speech at the Justice >> Department and in a >> presidential guidelines memorandum, will be Mr. Obama’s highest-profile >> response to the >> disclosures about the National Security Agency made in recent months by >> Edward J. Snowden, >> a former N.S.A. contractor who has fled to Russia. >> >> But as intelligence officials have sorted through Mr. Obama’s evolving >> position, they have >> been divided about how significant his adjustments will be. >> >> Some officials complained that the changes will add layers of cumbersome >> procedure that >> will hinder the hunt for potential terrorists, while others expressed >> relief that Mr. >> Obama is not going further and confidence that they could still work >> within the new >> guidelines without sacrificing much. >> >> “Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different >> direction?” asked one >> former government official who worked on intelligence issues. “That’s the >> question.” >> >> The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not >> comment further >> Tuesday. >> >> The developments came as the nation’s judiciary waded into the highly >> charged debate. In a >> letter made public on Tuesday, a judge designated by Chief Justice John >> G. Roberts Jr. to >> express the views of the judicial branch warned that some changes under >> consideration >> would have a negative “operational impact” on a secret foreign >> intelligence court. >> >> Judge John D. Bates, a former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence >> Surveillance Court, >> urged Mr. Obama and Congress not to alter the way the court is appointed >> or to create an >> independent public advocate to argue against the Justice Department in >> secret proceedings. >> Any such advocate, he wrote, should instead be appointed only when the >> court decided one >> was needed. >> >> Judge Bates objected to the workload of requiring that courts approve all >> national >> security letters, which are administrative subpoenas allowing the F.B.I. >> to obtain records >> about communications and financial transactions without court approval. >> >> And he raised concerns about greater public disclosure of court rulings, >> arguing that >> unclassified summaries would be “likely to promote confusion and >> misunderstanding.” >> >> The judge’s letter, versions of which he sent to the leaders of several >> congressional >> committees, was released as all five members of Mr. Obama’s surveillance >> review group >> testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeking support >> for their >> recommendations. >> >> Illustrating the cross-pressures on the president, the advisers argued >> for the appointment >> of the independent version of a public advocate, a recommendation the >> president is >> expected to follow, though it is not clear how he will structure the >> position. >> >> “We admire Judge Bates and respect his views,” said Cass R. Sunstein, of >> Harvard Law >> School and a former Obama White House official who served on the review >> panel. “We >> respectfully disagree with that one, on the ground that the judge >> sometimes is not in the >> ideal position to know whether a particular view needs representation and >> that in our >> tradition, standardly, the judge doesn’t decide whether one or another >> view gets a >> lawyer.” >> >> The judge’s objection to the proposal on national security letters >> dovetailed with that of >> the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who argued it would be inefficient >> to have to go to a >> judge each time records were sought. Mr. Obama has decided not to require >> court approval >> in every case, but might still require it in some circumstances, >> according to one >> administration official. >> >> Mr. Obama will cut back on the number of people whose phone records can >> be examined by the >> N.S.A. through its bulk data program. Currently the agency can scrutinize >> call records of >> people as far as three steps, or “hops,” removed from a suspect. Mr. >> Obama’s review panel >> proposed limiting searches to people just two steps removed. He is also >> likely to cut down >> the number of years such data can be retained; currently it is deleted >> after five years. >> >> But the president will not, at least for now, back the panel’s suggestion >> that >> telecommunications firms keep such data and that the government be >> allowed to tap into >> those databases only when necessary. >> >> Intelligence officials complained it would be inefficient to have to go >> to multiple >> companies, so some officials proposed creating an independent consortium >> to store the data >> instead. >> >> Mr. Obama has decided against keeping the data at the private providers >> because they do >> not want that responsibility, officials said, and no independent >> consortium currently >> exists. As a result, he will ask Congress to work with him to determine >> the best way to >> store the data. >> >> He also appears likely to reject the idea of separating code breakers and >> code makers. >> Some critics of the N.S.A. were disturbed that the agency’s encryption >> team charged with >> bolstering online security systems against hackers was working with the >> team that tries to >> penetrate computer systems used by terrorists. >> >> The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific >> comments about >> possible surveillance reforms. >> >> It is highly unusual for judges to weigh in on public policy debates >> involving the other >> two branches of government, but Judge Bates, the director of the >> Administrative Office of >> the United States Court, said that Chief Justice Roberts had designated >> him to “act as a >> liaison” and that he had consulted other judges. >> >> The judge emphasized that his comments were meant to address smooth >> operation of the court >> and were “not intended as expressions of support or opposition to >> particular introduced >> bills.” >> >> Still, his comments went beyond workload issues. He objected to a >> proposal by Mr. Obama’s >> review group to take away Chief Justice Roberts’s sole power to appoint >> the 11 judges of >> the surveillance court and have them picked instead by the chief judges >> of the appeals >> courts. >> >> Ten of the 11 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and >> critics have >> called for more diversity. “The chief justice is uniquely positioned to >> select qualified >> judges,” Judge Bates argued. >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joana Varon >> wrote: >> Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info. >> Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I >> suppose it will >> bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too basic, but >> what can be the >> height for a report such as this? Is there any process within the US gov >> in face of it? >> Best >> Joana >> On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I >> don't think have >> been circulate here yet): >> • President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform this >> Friday (17 >> January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be streamed. >> • The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing >> two separate >> reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. >> o The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section 215 of >> the PATRIOT Act >> and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be >> officially released >> on 23 January and "public and unclassified". >> o The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. persons", >> Section 702 of the >> FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on >> analysis of >> classified material and may have a classified annex. Classifying critical >> elements of the >> report could make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section >> 702, i.e. the >> targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this >> report is not yet >> known. >> Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed >> a letter >> (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its public >> comment period, urging >> the body to make recommendations to ensure that surveillance of >> communications conducted >> under Section 702 meets international human rights standards. >> >> Below is a blog from Access with some more information. >> >> Kind regards, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless >> Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? >> 11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by Drew Mitnick >> Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be >> public, though it may >> have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at OpenTheGovernment.org >> for this >> information. >> Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) >> released a statement >> detailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA >> surveillance programs. The >> Board will release one report on metadata collection under PATRIOT Act >> Section 215 and the >> Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January >> or early >> February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under >> FISA Section 702, >> with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a >> parallel >> report by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications >> Technologies, >> released in December 2013. >> PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. >> First and foremost, >> will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific recommendations that >> were lacking in the >> Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be public >> or classified? If >> the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the Obama administration >> listen? There’s >> plenty of evidence that none of these answers are yes. >> Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth? >> Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office >> of the Director >> of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent agency. It was >> created in 2004 to >> advise the President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat >> terrorism, but has >> so far been underutilized and hamstrung. The Senate failed to even >> approve a chairman, the >> Board’s only full-time position, until May of last year. PCLOB’s work >> marginally increased >> after the Snowden revelations, but have been hampered by a lack of >> budget, staff, subpoena >> power, and requisite security clearances. And even if these structural >> deficits were >> resolved, a fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the >> PCLOB has zero >> enforcement power. >> The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment >> by the recent >> report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the PCLOB was not >> up for the task >> of effective oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s >> Recommendation 27 >> included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an >> oversight body with the >> name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or >> perhaps, >> “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow authority from >> terrorism-related >> policy issues to encompass foreign intelligence, in order to better align >> with the mandate >> of FISA programs. >> Will we see a public report on Section 702? >> The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews >> of Section 215 and >> 702 programs was quietly announced in December. Why two? The language of >> the most recent >> statement may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and >> the FISC will be >> “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention >> of a public >> release, while stating that the report will address “classified >> materials.” The programs >> conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact on >> non-U.S. persons, and >> are the ones we still know the least about. Some of the weakest parts of >> the President’s >> Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on treatment of non-US >> persons under >> Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains classified, efforts to reform >> these programs will >> be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of >> its report on >> Section 702 programs. >> Will Obama even listen? >> Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, >> there’s little to >> indicate the Obama administration will give weight to their >> recommendations. President >> Obama has announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance >> reforms on January >> 17th, just days before the first PCLOB report drops. This timing will >> allow the >> administration to get out ahead of any criticisms the PCLOB report may >> make on the Section >> 215 programs, while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to >> be leading on >> reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section >> 702 programs? >> Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after the >> President’s speech, >> these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the rights >> of non-US >> persons. >> What does this mean? >> In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment period >> this past >> autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of recommendations, >> including some >> recommending greater rights protections for non-US persons, specifically >> pertaining to the >> Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- and >> those of dozens of >> others -- would be the basis for a transparent public review and >> recommendations. A secret >> review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report >> reinforces the cloak of >> secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance programs >> under Section 702, >> is entirely at odds with the public debate that precipitated the review, >> and will almost >> certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change. >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> ________________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > David Sullivan > Policy and Communications Director > Global Network Initiative > Office: +1 202 741 5048 > Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 > PGP: 0x60D244AA > @David_MSullivan > > GNI has moved, please note our new address: > 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 > Washington, DC 20036 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Jan 2 03:30:11 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 09:30:11 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Outlook 2014 References: <01e001cf0777$d91cf510$8b56df30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801332346@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI and happy new year. wolfgang http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131231_internet_governance_outlook_2014_good_news_bad_news_no_news/ From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 07:08:34 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:08:34 -0500 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Message-ID: Would be wonderful to be represented by our Brazilian liaisons.  Thanks Laura -------- Original message -------- From: Laura Tresca Date: 01/07/2014 6:03 AM (GMT-05:00) To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Dear Ian, If it´s helpful, ARTICLE 19 is based in Sao Paulo. We can temporary attend this specific meeting and report back to you. Best regards, Laura. ARTICLE 19 Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org ________________________________ De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Enviado: segunda-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2014 18:42 Para: Carolina Rossini; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Thanks for posting that Carolina (have cross-posted to governance list as well) I am not sure it will be possible to complete CS nominations by January 10, but we will try and it is certainly possible. But I am wondering if anyone would object to our current Brazilian reps attending these meetings as our temporary reps if we have not completed by then? Then at least we will have coverage and involvement. I want to say a few words about the break up of the 12 for HLC as well as I have been trying to get further information on this. In an IGF MAG situation, the breakup would be a simple 4/4/4 – with technical and academic combined.  However 1net has for its own committee given a separate and equally weighted representation to technical and academic – so its co ordination group is 5/5/5/5. At this stage CS has been asked to prepare 4 names for HLC. That I think pre-supposes 4 business, 4 civil society, and 2 academic and 2 technical. But I doubt whether technical would be happy with this. Thus the part of Adiel’s message that suggests the local group might have to consider further. So we may end up with 3/3/3/3. That I think would get broad approval. But it’s important to know, and for CS to decide the 3, not have 1net eliminate one name. Or in any way be the final arbiter of which civil society names are included and which are not. That is our business, not theirs. But I think what would be entirely unacceptable would be something like 4 business, 3 civil society, 3 technical, 2 academic. I mention  this because a few LOG members might be reading here. I am fairly sure that civil society would be very opposed to any situation where the weighting of the business community was greater than that of civil society. Ian Peter From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:55 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" > Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Thu Jan 16 10:57:14 2014 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:57:14 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> Dear Andrew and all I have only now had a chance to peruse this analysis, and am reading it more closely now. Thank you for all this work on our behalf; having the survey results is a welcome addition to all our thinking in any case but having this analysis will provide a launchpad I hope for further discussion on this and other lists. Hopefully this thread can emerge as people have time to consider the outcomes. Back on that in due course! Cheers MF On 13/01/2014 16:08, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Thanks Parminder > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* 13 January 2014 13:44 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > Thanks Andrew, a very important work.. > > Would comment later, but yes, it is this kind of clear positions on > what one seeks that it needed at this stage. > > (Of course I do not agree with a good part of the analysis and > conclusions/ outcomes :), and would engage in detail soon.) > > parminder > > On Monday 13 January 2014 05:35 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to > look at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in > November. Taking advantage of the presence of other groups in > Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring in > representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy > Project. The results of our conversation are set out below and in > a word attachment. Drawing upon the responses to the survey and > other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at: > > ·The case for reform > > ·Possible criteria for reforming IG governance > > ·An evaluation of the different proposals for reform > > ·Preliminary conclusions. > > Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the > criteria we set out for an IG system, that a _dispersed system of > governance_ has more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised > system of governance. We go on to conclude in favour of > maintaining a distributed governance regime, but that it should be > strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new > coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific > multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also > agreed that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at > ICANN, but more research is needed about the options and risks here. > > It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a > response from then list. To simplify things I suggest that > people submit three categories of comments. > > 1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the > approach put forward. I suggest that they develop their own > approach find their own collaborators and work on their own > ideas. May a hundred flowers bloom. > > 2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to > make which require further discussion. I will then collect these > put together an online conference call or some other mechanism to > discuss then in a structured fashion. > > 3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different > phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences. These I will > collect and try and resolve through e-mail conversation. > > We’ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so > it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were > represented. And although we should aim to submit something to > Brazil by March 1^st , this position is one we can develop and > utilise in other forums. If you have other suggestins on how to > pull together different comments, do let me know. > > Andrew Puddephatt > > *_Internet Governance: proposals for reform _* > > ***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet > Democracy Project*** > > In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for > internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the > upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future > of Internet Governance and other relevant forums – Global Partners > Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society > organisations. > > In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the > group worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits > survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals > for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors > were aware of: > > 1.What is the case for reform of IG and do we have a common > understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are? > > 2.If there is a case for reform what are the criteria for a > reformed system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a > basic commitment to human rights and social justice? > > 3.How do the various proposals for reform stack up against these > criteria – what are their strengths and weaknesses and what > potential risks and benefits. > > 4.What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what > are those which we desire but would be willing to compromise > around. Considering the previous questions, is there a rough > consensus among the group present that we could share with the > wider BB community to enrich the approach? > > The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and > discussion. > > *1) Case for reform* > > Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group > identified the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: > > ·There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, > particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. > > ·There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and > language. > > ·Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have > not been adequately tackled. > > ·The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its > mandate. > > ·Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates > difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen > to be increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. > > ·There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This > also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human > rights/public interest decisions. > > ·There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or > global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed > out. This means governments are falling back on different national > laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and > distributed functioning of the internet. > > ·Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many > governments are pursuing/establishing separate international > initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) > which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or > global. > > ·Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of “state > sovereignty” on the global internet. > > ·There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made > – there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships > between them. > > ·The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed > from the beginning as an international medium, and its > international character and the benefits of free expression and > access to information that it brings need to be preserved. > > ·There is a unique property to the internet that requires global > cooperation and coordination to make it effective. > > *2) Criteria for Internet Governance * > > NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB > second Workstream looking at high level principles. The current > suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br > principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could > be potential to unite around a core set of principles. > > After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt > were an essential element of any democratic international > governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply > to any system of international governance rather than looking for > criteria that only applied to the internet – in order to avoid the > pitfalls of “internet exceptionalism”. Rather, in a globalised > world, where there are generally very weak lines of accountability > between a government's positions on the international stage and > its electorate back at home, open international spaces with > broad-based participation can be important opportunities for > bringing international decisions much closer to citizens across > the world. In this context, the group found that the international > IG regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications for > wider international governance systems (beyond the Internet). The > group recognised that these criteria are aspirational and that any > proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. > Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for > assessing any proposed changes. > > The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary > for the governance of complex global phenomena: > > *a)**Processes* > > ·Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone > to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; > > ·Accountable: internal and external accountability process should > exist, including a way of challenging decisions; > > ·Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver > > ·Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and > developments in the field. > > ** > > *b) Participation* > > ·Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many. > > ·All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at > good decisions/agreements > > ·Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions > > ·Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be > able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group > recognised that this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus > based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there > may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks, such as > decision-making by majority vote. > > ** > > *c) Underlying Values* > > ·Human rights values should be at the core of any governance > process and outcomes. > > ·Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding > of the internet as a global public good). > > *3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform * > > The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the > current system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list > of models analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the > brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions - > they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be > found in the sources listed at the end of the document. > > */_UN Committee Model_/* > > /Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee > made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up > of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate > over global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight > of the technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this > model with the exception that oversight of the technical bodies > would reside in a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board > formed of technical experts nominated by governments./ > > // > > */_Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by > Jeremy Malcolm)_/* > > /A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the > auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from > civil society, private sector, government and technical/academic > communities, and observers from international organisations). The > MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough consensus in > IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough > consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The > recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the > development of binding rules by other institutions where > appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. / > > *//* > > */_Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by > Wolfgang Kleinwachter)_/* > > /A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached > to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on > Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body – > identifying issues raised at the IGF and recommending an > appropriate mechanism to address those issues, either a > pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a > technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New > mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with > mandates to address specific issues by rough consensus. / > > *//* > > */_Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by > Internet Democracy Project)_/* > > /This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the > MIPOC model above, however the coordinating body would be housed > in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in > this model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, this > model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should > be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing > institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once > an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would > then be responsible for developing an appropriate > multi-stakeholder process to respond to that issue./ > > *//* > > */_Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated > by Internet & Jurisdiction Project) _/* > > /Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to > specific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of > technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is > to be adopted. For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these > processes should involve experts and powerful players, such as key > governments. However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project’s model > appears to be more of a ‘proof of concept’ that could feasibly be > institutionalized within one of the models outlined above. / > > // > > Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, > the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and > therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how > things happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the > effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy > recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed > very broad and more clarification is needed about potential > clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. > As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and based > on experience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be > dominated by geo-political interests. As a single body with > oversight – potentially – of all public policy issues related to > the internet, the group felt there was a risk that the body would > not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions across > all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, > it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed > group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range > of policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups > would also create risks that those impacted by decisions would not > necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore there was a > question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group > responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting > just a few times per year. > > Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of > centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental > stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF > playing a more or less central role as a clearing house for > identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process > to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet > community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the > possibility for enabling pathways from the national through > regional to global level discussion and back down by tying all > processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was > seen to be that building on the strengths of the IGF could foster > openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet > community. There were, however, concerns given that the IGF > hasn’t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. > For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and > agenda from IGF discussions – this would require a more > output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical > to instituting these models. > > A key feature of most of the above models, which the group > strongly supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating > function in the current internet governance regime. The > multi-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also > strongly supported by the group. The advantage of these models > was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater clarity > (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues > are addressed. > > In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed > approach where many institutions are involved in different aspects > of internet-related public policy. The group specifically > supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate > processes for separate issues for several reasons. Distributing > power was seen as protection against power-grabs, which many saw > as the main concern with the more centralised approach in the UN > Committee model – and to a lesser extent Jeremy’s MIPC model. > > A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in > expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being > more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet > environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any > distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract power > imbalances. For example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes > are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. > > There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the > distributed models as they retain some of the challenges of the > current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar to > existing governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The > other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The group > felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test > bed for the modalities of such an approach. > > ** > > *4) Existing Institutions* > > The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the > current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming > them to an extent that would allow issues with the current system > to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen > alongside the ideas above considering the overall governance regime. > > ** > > *IGF * > > The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of > sources below). There were a number of areas where necessary > reforms were identified: > > ·Providing stronger leadership; > > ·A better funded and supported secretariat; > > ·Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and > all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system; > > ·Clearing house function; > > ·More output-orientated; > > ·Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of > national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for > issues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding > their way to global consideration and back down to the regional > and national levels; > > ·Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south > governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of > all institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small > to medium businesses); > > ·Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > *ICANN * > > In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN > (including removing the privilege of the US which was seen as > important though largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved > as it might involve both location and structure. However, the > group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the different > options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine > their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article > 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue. > > ** > > *5) Preliminary conclusions * > > From the response to the survey and by analysing various > alternative models using the criteria set out above, there seems > to be potential to come to a rough consensus combining a number of > ideas commanding broad support among civil society. > > _Dispersed vs. centralised_ > > A key point was whether a single decision making space would be > more appropriate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind > of expertise could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised > system could be easier to navigate but a dispersed system had > fewer risks for political or corporate capture and enabled > issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage on > specific issues. *On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both > approaches weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of > governance*. > > _Broad participation & role of reformed IGF_ > > Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve > as broad as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF > was seen as an important space for achieving this. For instance, a > reformed IGF could act as a central space for learning about and > feeding into all internet-related public policies within a > dispersed system. *The reform could entail: a stronger leadership, > a better supported secretariat, stronger links between the IGF and > all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to > national and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening > participation and reforming the MAG.* > > _A new co-ordinating function_ > > There was general interest in the idea of creating a new > coordinating function to facilitate the coherence and > effectiveness of internet-related policy making within a > distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group should > be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group > should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). > *A new coordinating function is needed. More discussion is needed > about the form, location and processes by which that function is > exercised. * > > _Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups _ > > When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was > broad agreement that these should be resolved through ad hoc > multi-stakeholder working groups were developed to deal with > specific issues. There wasn’t a decision yet on where/how those > working groups should be formed (i.e. by different institutions > with mandate over different issues, by a working group tied to > CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision making > there was broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by > consensus with the option to shift to another process where > necessary and appropriate (including multilateral processes, e.g. > to draft a treaty). *New internet policy issues should be dealt > with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups which are > issue specific.* *More discussion is needed about the form, > location and processes of those multi-stakeholder working groups.* > > _ICANN reform_ > > *A reformed ICANN – details to be worked on further.* > > ** > > *6) List of Sources* > > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ > > http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/ > > http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf > > http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp > > http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true > > http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf > > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf > > http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf > > http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/ > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf > > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: > andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org Thu Jan 16 10:58:58 2014 From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:58:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: References: <38CC71B06AB34B889DDA97C740E5BAE8@Toshiba> <04d901cf127f$00ac4470$0204cd50$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: Here is an interesting tidbit from today's Washington Post storyabout the speech, which is now getting some attention here in DC: "The House probably will have the votes to block the program’s renewal next year — absent a major attack or other event that changes the political climate. That has colored the White House’s thinking about how to proceed, officials said." I'd be curious to hear what other folks think about this. It certainly seems possible given that an amendment to defund the bulk phone records program was only narrowly defeated last summer. But the broader point is that I think Marilia is unfortunately right to be pessimistic for now, and that it will take significant action from both the legislative and judicial branches here in the US to make reforms meaningful, not just whatever actions the executive branch announces tomorrow. Best, David On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Thank you all very much for the references. The fact that important > networks and organizations are taking a clear stance and calling for reform > is of ultimate importance. I particularly liked GNI's global approach > emphasizing the rights of people of all nations. However, when I read news > such as this one in the nyt ( > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/nsa-effort-pries-open-computers-not-connected-to-internet.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0), I wonder if it is feasible to make a U turn. The investment the US > government has made on surveillance technologies must have been huge and > needs to be "payed back", like any other investment. That could happen in > several forms, like gathering intelligence, accessing industrial secrets, > collecting personal data and would give them an edge... The political and > economic incentives to continue on this path are huge. And there is an > emerging rhetoric of cold war with China that is scary... Security > companies and the defense industry must be excited with this mood, in > anticipation of profits... > > And even if the government publicly committs to reform appeasing > advocates, how do we ensure that reform is being indeed carried out, when > so much information is labled under national security, and therefore is > kept secret? How to place security policies under public scrutiny and make > policy makers accountable in this field? > > Am I being too pessimistic? I would like to hear from others, specially > from US, and maybe "calibrate" my views. I would love to be wrong :) > > Marília > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Sullivan < > dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Here is GNI's statement and recommendations in advance of the speech: >> http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/surveillance-reforms-protect-rights-and-restore-trust >> >> Also of interest may be this piece by Geoff King from CPJ: >> http://cpj.org/internet/2014/01/obamas-legacy-on-the-line-with-surveillance-policy.php >> >> Best, >> David >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:51 AM, James S. Tyre wrote: >> >>> Folks may be interested in EFF's scorecard. We'll be grading Obama >>> after his Friday >>> speech. >>> >>> >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/scorecard-will-obama-hit-mark-real-nsa-reform >>> >>> -- >>> James S. Tyre >>> Law Offices of James S. Tyre >>> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 >>> Culver City, CA 90230-4969 >>> 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) >>> jstyre at jstyre.com >>> Special Counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> https://www.eff.org >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On >>> Behalf Of Ian Peter >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:34 PM >>> To: Deborah Brown >>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports >>> >>> nice to see ISOC getting in on the act too.. >>> >>> >>> http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-urges-president-obama-effect-%E2%80%9 >>> 8immediate-and-meaningful%E2%80%99-changes-us-government >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Deborah Brown >>> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:30 PM >>> To: Ian Peter >>> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports >>> >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> I find the headline "US judiciary rejects NSA reform proposals from >>> Obama’s review group" >>> of the article a bit misleading. I don't think the letter from Judge >>> Bates constitutes a >>> rejection on behalf of the U.S. Judiciary, as influential or respected >>> he might be. The >>> NYT article I sent did take into account Bates' letter and offered a >>> dissenting view (by >>> Cass R. Sunstein). Others here may have more insight into the importance >>> of Bates' letter. >>> >>> I agree with you that now may be the time for last minute pressure, and >>> I would add for >>> the sake of international human rights to your list :) >>> All the best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Ian Peter >>> wrote: >>> Hi Deborah, is this summation before or after >>> >>> http://rt.com/usa/us-judges-nsa-reform-649/ >>> >>> It seems that Obama is being pressured by various lobby groups and >>> powerful forces and I >>> wonder how predictable any outcome is at this stage. >>> >>> I just went to www.whitehouse.gov and submitted a few comments urging >>> the President to be >>> strong – for the sake of US standing in the world, the economic >>> performance of US tech >>> companies, and the citizens of the world. Might be time to lobby as much >>> last minute >>> persuasion as we can muster... >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Deborah Brown >>> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:36 AM >>> To: Joana Varon >>> Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports >>> >>> Hi Joana, Yes the PCLOB reports should have recommendations, which >>> potentially Congress or >>> the White House would take up. PCLOB was created to advise the >>> President, but there should >>> be proposals that would require Congressional action. But considering >>> Obama is making a >>> major speech before PCLOB releases its findings and recommendations, >>> their significance >>> may be diminished. >>> >>> Here's some additional info on the anticipated speech (section about >>> rights of >>> "foreigners/non-U.S.-persons" in bold) >>> >>> I hope this is helpful. >>> >>> All the best, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/judge-warns-proposed-safeguards-could-hamper >>> -surveillance-court.html?hp >>> >>> Obama to Place Some Restraints on Surveillance >>> By PETER BAKER and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 14, 2014 >>> >>> President Obama spoke to reporters before a cabinet meeting at the White >>> House on Tuesday >>> morning. Mr. Obama’s speech on spying guidelines is scheduled for >>> Friday. Stephen >>> Crowley/The New York Times >>> >>> >>> WASHINGTON — President Obama will issue new guidelines on Friday to >>> curtail government >>> surveillance, but will not embrace the most far-reaching proposals of >>> his own advisers and >>> will ask Congress to help decide some of the toughest issues, according >>> to people briefed >>> on his thinking. >>> >>> Mr. Obama plans to increase limits on access to bulk telephone data, >>> call for privacy >>> safeguards for foreigners and propose the creation of a public advocate >>> to represent >>> privacy concerns at a secret intelligence court. But he will not endorse >>> leaving bulk data >>> in the custody of telecommunications firms, nor will he require court >>> permission for all >>> so-called national security letters seeking business records. >>> >>> The emerging approach, described by current and former government >>> officials who insisted >>> on anonymity in advance of Mr. Obama’s widely anticipated speech, >>> suggested a president >>> trying to straddle a difficult line in hopes of placating foreign >>> leaders and advocates of >>> civil liberties without a backlash from national security agencies. The >>> result seems to be >>> a speech that leaves in place many current programs, but embraces the >>> spirit of reform and >>> keeps the door open to changes later. >>> >>> The decision to provide additional privacy protections for non-American >>> citizens or >>> residents, for instance, largely codifies existing practices but will be >>> followed by a >>> 180-day study by the director of national intelligence about whether to >>> go further. >>> Likewise, instead of taking the storage of bulk data out of government >>> hands, as >>> recommended by a review panel he appointed, Mr. Obama will leave it in >>> place for now and >>> ask lawmakers to weigh in. >>> >>> The blend of decisions, to be outlined in a speech at the Justice >>> Department and in a >>> presidential guidelines memorandum, will be Mr. Obama’s highest-profile >>> response to the >>> disclosures about the National Security Agency made in recent months by >>> Edward J. Snowden, >>> a former N.S.A. contractor who has fled to Russia. >>> >>> But as intelligence officials have sorted through Mr. Obama’s evolving >>> position, they have >>> been divided about how significant his adjustments will be. >>> >>> Some officials complained that the changes will add layers of cumbersome >>> procedure that >>> will hinder the hunt for potential terrorists, while others expressed >>> relief that Mr. >>> Obama is not going further and confidence that they could still work >>> within the new >>> guidelines without sacrificing much. >>> >>> “Is it cosmetic or is there a real thumb on the scale in a different >>> direction?” asked one >>> former government official who worked on intelligence issues. “That’s >>> the question.” >>> >>> The White House said the president’s review is incomplete and would not >>> comment further >>> Tuesday. >>> >>> The developments came as the nation’s judiciary waded into the highly >>> charged debate. In a >>> letter made public on Tuesday, a judge designated by Chief Justice John >>> G. Roberts Jr. to >>> express the views of the judicial branch warned that some changes under >>> consideration >>> would have a negative “operational impact” on a secret foreign >>> intelligence court. >>> >>> Judge John D. Bates, a former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence >>> Surveillance Court, >>> urged Mr. Obama and Congress not to alter the way the court is appointed >>> or to create an >>> independent public advocate to argue against the Justice Department in >>> secret proceedings. >>> Any such advocate, he wrote, should instead be appointed only when the >>> court decided one >>> was needed. >>> >>> Judge Bates objected to the workload of requiring that courts approve >>> all national >>> security letters, which are administrative subpoenas allowing the F.B.I. >>> to obtain records >>> about communications and financial transactions without court approval. >>> >>> And he raised concerns about greater public disclosure of court rulings, >>> arguing that >>> unclassified summaries would be “likely to promote confusion and >>> misunderstanding.” >>> >>> The judge’s letter, versions of which he sent to the leaders of several >>> congressional >>> committees, was released as all five members of Mr. Obama’s surveillance >>> review group >>> testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, seeking support >>> for their >>> recommendations. >>> >>> Illustrating the cross-pressures on the president, the advisers argued >>> for the appointment >>> of the independent version of a public advocate, a recommendation the >>> president is >>> expected to follow, though it is not clear how he will structure the >>> position. >>> >>> “We admire Judge Bates and respect his views,” said Cass R. Sunstein, of >>> Harvard Law >>> School and a former Obama White House official who served on the review >>> panel. “We >>> respectfully disagree with that one, on the ground that the judge >>> sometimes is not in the >>> ideal position to know whether a particular view needs representation >>> and that in our >>> tradition, standardly, the judge doesn’t decide whether one or another >>> view gets a >>> lawyer.” >>> >>> The judge’s objection to the proposal on national security letters >>> dovetailed with that of >>> the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, who argued it would be inefficient >>> to have to go to a >>> judge each time records were sought. Mr. Obama has decided not to >>> require court approval >>> in every case, but might still require it in some circumstances, >>> according to one >>> administration official. >>> >>> Mr. Obama will cut back on the number of people whose phone records can >>> be examined by the >>> N.S.A. through its bulk data program. Currently the agency can >>> scrutinize call records of >>> people as far as three steps, or “hops,” removed from a suspect. Mr. >>> Obama’s review panel >>> proposed limiting searches to people just two steps removed. He is also >>> likely to cut down >>> the number of years such data can be retained; currently it is deleted >>> after five years. >>> >>> But the president will not, at least for now, back the panel’s >>> suggestion that >>> telecommunications firms keep such data and that the government be >>> allowed to tap into >>> those databases only when necessary. >>> >>> Intelligence officials complained it would be inefficient to have to go >>> to multiple >>> companies, so some officials proposed creating an independent consortium >>> to store the data >>> instead. >>> >>> Mr. Obama has decided against keeping the data at the private providers >>> because they do >>> not want that responsibility, officials said, and no independent >>> consortium currently >>> exists. As a result, he will ask Congress to work with him to determine >>> the best way to >>> store the data. >>> >>> He also appears likely to reject the idea of separating code breakers >>> and code makers. >>> Some critics of the N.S.A. were disturbed that the agency’s encryption >>> team charged with >>> bolstering online security systems against hackers was working with the >>> team that tries to >>> penetrate computer systems used by terrorists. >>> >>> The letter by Judge Bates was accompanied by 15 pages of often specific >>> comments about >>> possible surveillance reforms. >>> >>> It is highly unusual for judges to weigh in on public policy debates >>> involving the other >>> two branches of government, but Judge Bates, the director of the >>> Administrative Office of >>> the United States Court, said that Chief Justice Roberts had designated >>> him to “act as a >>> liaison” and that he had consulted other judges. >>> >>> The judge emphasized that his comments were meant to address smooth >>> operation of the court >>> and were “not intended as expressions of support or opposition to >>> particular introduced >>> bills.” >>> >>> Still, his comments went beyond workload issues. He objected to a >>> proposal by Mr. Obama’s >>> review group to take away Chief Justice Roberts’s sole power to appoint >>> the 11 judges of >>> the surveillance court and have them picked instead by the chief judges >>> of the appeals >>> courts. >>> >>> Ten of the 11 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents, >>> and critics have >>> called for more diversity. “The chief justice is uniquely positioned to >>> select qualified >>> judges,” Judge Bates argued. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Joana Varon >>> wrote: >>> Thanks, Deborah. Very useful info. >>> Will keep a look for the streaming and release of the first report. I >>> suppose it will >>> bring recomendations, right? Sorry if this question is too basic, but >>> what can be the >>> height for a report such as this? Is there any process within the US gov >>> in face of it? >>> Best >>> Joana >>> On 15 Jan 2014 02:32, "Deborah Brown" wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and >>> I don't think have >>> been circulate here yet): >>> • President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform this >>> Friday (17 >>> January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be streamed. >>> • The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing >>> two separate >>> reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. >>> o The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section 215 >>> of the PATRIOT Act >>> and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be >>> officially released >>> on 23 January and "public and unclassified". >>> o The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. persons", >>> Section 702 of the >>> FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on >>> analysis of >>> classified material and may have a classified annex. Classifying >>> critical elements of the >>> report could make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section >>> 702, i.e. the >>> targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this >>> report is not yet >>> known. >>> Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed >>> a letter >>> (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its public >>> comment period, urging >>> the body to make recommendations to ensure that surveillance of >>> communications conducted >>> under Section 702 meets international human rights standards. >>> >>> Below is a blog from Access with some more information. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Deborah >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless >>> Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? >>> 11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by Drew Mitnick >>> Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be >>> public, though it may >>> have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at OpenTheGovernment.org >>> for this >>> information. >>> Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) >>> released a statement >>> detailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA >>> surveillance programs. The >>> Board will release one report on metadata collection under PATRIOT Act >>> Section 215 and the >>> Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January >>> or early >>> February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under >>> FISA Section 702, >>> with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a >>> parallel >>> report by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and >>> Communications Technologies, >>> released in December 2013. >>> PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. >>> First and foremost, >>> will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific recommendations that >>> were lacking in the >>> Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be public >>> or classified? If >>> the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the Obama administration >>> listen? There’s >>> plenty of evidence that none of these answers are yes. >>> Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth? >>> Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office >>> of the Director >>> of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent agency. It was >>> created in 2004 to >>> advise the President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat >>> terrorism, but has >>> so far been underutilized and hamstrung. The Senate failed to even >>> approve a chairman, the >>> Board’s only full-time position, until May of last year. PCLOB’s work >>> marginally increased >>> after the Snowden revelations, but have been hampered by a lack of >>> budget, staff, subpoena >>> power, and requisite security clearances. And even if these structural >>> deficits were >>> resolved, a fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the >>> PCLOB has zero >>> enforcement power. >>> The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment >>> by the recent >>> report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the PCLOB was not >>> up for the task >>> of effective oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s >>> Recommendation 27 >>> included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an >>> oversight body with the >>> name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or >>> perhaps, >>> “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow authority from >>> terrorism-related >>> policy issues to encompass foreign intelligence, in order to better >>> align with the mandate >>> of FISA programs. >>> Will we see a public report on Section 702? >>> The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews >>> of Section 215 and >>> 702 programs was quietly announced in December. Why two? The language of >>> the most recent >>> statement may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and >>> the FISC will be >>> “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no >>> mention of a public >>> release, while stating that the report will address “classified >>> materials.” The programs >>> conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact on >>> non-U.S. persons, and >>> are the ones we still know the least about. Some of the weakest parts of >>> the President’s >>> Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on treatment of non-US >>> persons under >>> Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains classified, efforts to reform >>> these programs will >>> be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version >>> of its report on >>> Section 702 programs. >>> Will Obama even listen? >>> Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, >>> there’s little to >>> indicate the Obama administration will give weight to their >>> recommendations. President >>> Obama has announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance >>> reforms on January >>> 17th, just days before the first PCLOB report drops. This timing will >>> allow the >>> administration to get out ahead of any criticisms the PCLOB report may >>> make on the Section >>> 215 programs, while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to >>> be leading on >>> reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the >>> Section 702 programs? >>> Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after the >>> President’s speech, >>> these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the >>> rights of non-US >>> persons. >>> What does this mean? >>> In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment >>> period this past >>> autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of recommendations, >>> including some >>> recommending greater rights protections for non-US persons, specifically >>> pertaining to the >>> Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- and >>> those of dozens of >>> others -- would be the basis for a transparent public review and >>> recommendations. A secret >>> review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report >>> reinforces the cloak of >>> secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance programs >>> under Section 702, >>> is entirely at odds with the public debate that precipitated the review, >>> and will almost >>> certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change. >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Senior Policy Analyst >>> Access | accessnow.org >>> rightscon.org >>> >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Senior Policy Analyst >>> Access | accessnow.org >>> rightscon.org >>> >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> ________________________________________ >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Deborah Brown >>> Senior Policy Analyst >>> Access | accessnow.org >>> rightscon.org >>> >>> @deblebrown >>> PGP 0x5EB4727D >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> David Sullivan >> Policy and Communications Director >> Global Network Initiative >> Office: +1 202 741 5048 >> Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 >> PGP: 0x60D244AA >> @David_MSullivan >> >> GNI has moved, please note our new address: >> 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 >> Washington, DC 20036 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- David Sullivan Policy and Communications Director Global Network Initiative Office: +1 202 741 5048 Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 PGP: 0x60D244AA @David_MSullivan GNI has moved, please note our new address: 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, DC 20036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Thu Jan 16 20:23:55 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:53:55 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users In-Reply-To: <52D82002.9050806@gmail.com> References: <52D82002.9050806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52D8862B.4090500@ITforChange.net> Excerpt "In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred." (Is the rest of the world, the digital colony of California:-) ?).. Google's journey from 'see no evil ...' to 'arrogant and immoral'... is part explained by that immortal quote of Acton ... power tends to corrupt and absolute power (as Google practically enjoys today in many digital spaces) corrupts absolutely... regards, Guru source - http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/16/google-uk-courts-privacy-breach-iphone-safari Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users High court rules that group of more than 100 alleging invasion of privacy through Safari 'hack' can have case heard in UK Charles Arthur The Guardian , Thursday 16 January 2014 14.22 GMT Google has lost its high court bid to block a breach of privacy legal action launched against it in the UK by a group of British internet users. The case will now go ahead in the UK, where a group of more than 100 people are suing Google, alleging that it misused private information, breached confidence and breached the 1998 Data Protection Act. Google said it will appeal against the decision, on the basis that the case does not meet the standards required to be heard by the court. The search company had applied for a declaration that the case doesn't meet the criteria to be heard by the court, which relate to a "hack" that it used on Apple's Safari browser to install advertising cookies. But Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's high court, ruled that the UK courts were the "appropriate jurisdiction" to try their claims. "I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in each of the claimant's claims for misuse of private information," he said in the ruling . The group, which calls itself Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking, accuses Google of invading their privacy after bypassing security settings in order to track their online browsing and to target them with personalised advertisements. Judith Vidal-Hall, one of the claimants, who had campaigned under the name Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking, said she was "delighted" that Google will have to answer questions in open court. “We want to know how Google came to ignore user preferences to track us online; how did they get around Apple’s program settings – they have said it was accidental, but how do you accidentally interfere with someone else’s program? We want to know how long they have done this for, what they’ve done with our private data, how much they have made from this, and why they keep flouting privacy laws? This case is about protecting the rights of all internet users who use a company that is virtually a monopoly but seems intent on ignoring their right to privacy.” In the judgment, Tugendhat rebuffed Google's argument that the information was not private because it was anonymous. "It would not collect and collate information unless doing so enabled it to produce something of value," he said. In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred. In the US, Google has already paid a $22.5m (£14.4m fine to the US Federal Trade Commission and a further $17m to a number of US states for the breach, which meant that Safari users' web activity could be tracked even where the browser settings said they should not be. Google said in a statement: "A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety three months ago in the US. We still don’t think that this case meets the standards required in the UK for it to go to trial, and we’ll be appealing today’s ruling.” The US class action case, brought in Delaware, was struck down on the basis that the plaintiff there could not prove harm, and had not shown a loss of money or property. However the US does not have an equivalent of the UK's Data Protection Act or other privacy legislation which is being asserted in the UK case. The "hack" was discovered by Jonathan Mayer, a university researcher, late in 2011. Google admitted that it had carried it out in February 2012. The "hack" circumvented protections built into Safari on the iPhone and iPad and Mac desktop computers and meant that people could see messages indicating whether their associates in Google "Circles" on its Google+ social network had clicked on ads – but it also let Google and other advertisers see which websites people landed on. By January 2013, more than 70 Britons had contacted lawyers to seek redress . But in August they complained that it was trying to deny that UK laws were applicable to their use. Its lawyers also described their claims as "not serious", suggesting that peoples' browsing habits were not protected as "personal information" even where they related to sexuality or personal health. A group spokesman said: "The Google argument that any trial should take place in California has not been accepted by the judge." Tugendhat said: "The claimants have clearly established that this jurisdiction is the appropriate one in which to try each of the above claims." From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Jan 17 03:34:20 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:34:20 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users In-Reply-To: <52D8862B.4090500@ITforChange.net> References: <52D82002.9050806@gmail.com> <52D8862B.4090500@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Thanks Guru! (It will take far more for our status-quoers to feel what is so outrageous here!) JC Le 17 janv. 2014 à 02:23, Guru गुरु a écrit : > Excerpt > > "In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred." > > (Is the rest of the world, the digital colony of California:-) ?).. Google's journey from 'see no evil ...' to 'arrogant and immoral'... is part explained by that immortal quote of Acton ... power tends to corrupt and absolute power (as Google practically enjoys today in many digital spaces) corrupts absolutely... > > regards, > Guru > > source - http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/16/google-uk-courts-privacy-breach-iphone-safari > > Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users > > High court rules that group of more than 100 alleging invasion of privacy through Safari 'hack' can have case heard in UK > Charles Arthur > > The Guardian , Thursday 16 January 2014 14.22 GMT > > Google has lost its high court bid to block a breach of privacy legal action launched against it in the UK by a group of British internet users. > > The case will now go ahead in the UK, where a group of more than 100 people are suing Google, alleging that it misused private information, breached confidence and breached the 1998 Data Protection Act. > > Google said it will appeal against the decision, on the basis that the case does not meet the standards required to be heard by the court. > > The search company had applied for a declaration that the case doesn't meet the criteria to be heard by the court, which relate to a "hack" that it used on Apple's Safari browser to install advertising cookies. > > But Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at London's high court, ruled that the UK courts were the "appropriate jurisdiction" to try their claims. "I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in each of the claimant's claims for misuse of private information," he said in the ruling . > > The group, which calls itself Safari Users Against Google's Secret Tracking, accuses Google of invading their privacy after bypassing security settings in order to track their online browsing and to target them with personalised advertisements. > > Judith Vidal-Hall, one of the claimants, who had campaigned under the name Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking, said she was "delighted" that Google will have to answer questions in open court. > > “We want to know how Google came to ignore user preferences to track us online; how did they get around Apple’s program settings – they have said it was accidental, but how do you accidentally interfere with someone else’s program? We want to know how long they have done this for, what they’ve done with our private data, how much they have made from this, and why they keep flouting privacy laws? This case is about protecting the rights of all internet users who use a company that is virtually a monopoly but seems intent on ignoring their right to privacy.” > > In the judgment, Tugendhat rebuffed Google's argument that the information was not private because it was anonymous. "It would not collect and collate information unless doing so enabled it to produce something of value," he said. > > In December the group called Google "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that internet users in the UK should bring any lawsuit over the tracking in California, where it is based, rather than the UK, where they lived and claimed that the infringement occurred. > > In the US, Google has already paid a $22.5m (£14.4m fine to the US Federal Trade Commission and a further $17m to a number of US states for the breach, which meant that Safari users' web activity could be tracked even where the browser settings said they should not be. > > Google said in a statement: "A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety three months ago in the US. We still don’t think that this case meets the standards required in the UK for it to go to trial, and we’ll be appealing today’s ruling.” > > The US class action case, brought in Delaware, was struck down on the basis that the plaintiff there could not prove harm, and had not shown a loss of money or property. However the US does not have an equivalent of the UK's Data Protection Act or other privacy legislation which is being asserted in the UK case. > > The "hack" was discovered by Jonathan Mayer, a university researcher, late in 2011. Google admitted that it had carried it out in February 2012. The "hack" circumvented protections built into Safari on the iPhone and iPad and Mac desktop computers and meant that people could see messages indicating whether their associates in Google "Circles" on its Google+ social network had clicked on ads – but it also let Google and other advertisers see which websites people landed on. > > By January 2013, more than 70 Britons had contacted lawyers to seek redress . But in August they complained that it was trying to deny that UK laws were applicable to their use. Its lawyers also described their claims as "not serious", suggesting that peoples' browsing habits were not protected as "personal information" even where they related to sexuality or personal health. > > A group spokesman said: "The Google argument that any trial should take place in California has not been accepted by the judge." Tugendhat said: "The claimants have clearly established that this jurisdiction is the appropriate one in which to try each of the above claims." > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jan 17 06:31:56 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:31:56 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> Message-ID: <05596A5E-69F5-4186-99B2-3B0E400C004E@glocom.ac.jp> On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I join Izumi and all others in thanking the NomCom for taking up a difficult task and completing this process in such a good manner. > I am thankful for the trust and will give my very best to carry out the tasks ahead. Rolling up my sleeves here and looking forward to the next steps and to our discussions :) > Marília > > Very much share Marilia's sentiments -- thanks NomCom, thanks for your trust. Adam > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > +1. > > Especially for the hard and difficult work of the Nomcom and its Chair. > > izumi > > > 2014/1/15 William Drake > Hi > > Excellent group, congrats to the nomcom! > > Bill > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list of names for consideration >> >> High Level Committee >> >> Jovan Kurbalija >> Stephanie Perrin >> Louis Pouzin >> >> Executive Multistakeholder Committee >> >> Adam Peake >> Marilia Maciel >> >> Biographical details appear below. >> >> The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations were denied full consideration. >> >> The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant challenge. >> >> The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. >> >> We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. >> >> Biographical details are below. >> >> >> Ian Peter (non voting Chair) >> >> BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS >> >> Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a former diplomat with a professional and academic background in international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved into DiploFoundation. >> >> Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and diplomatic law. >> >> Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. >> >> Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance discussions. >> >> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. >> >> Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals from different countries who have joined together with the concern to enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> 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 > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > 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 eddank at aya.yale.edu Thu Jan 16 23:44:13 2014 From: eddank at aya.yale.edu (Eddan Katz) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:44:13 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports References: Message-ID: And at the intersection of global and local, the Oakland Privacy Working Group is setting its sights on shutting down funding for the Domain Awareness Centers and their Fusion Centers. We're in the finally month of opposition and think we have a chance to severely cut this off in Oakland City Council in an upcoming Public Safety Committee vote. Here's our petition: https://www.change.org/petitions/the-mayor-and-city-council-of-oakland-ca-don-t-sell-out-the-people-of-oakland-to-the-department-of-homeland-security-don-t-vote-to-fund-the-domain-awareness-center We're hoping that some attention from digital rights networks will be decisive in swaying the key votes. We are trying to get as many signatures as possible in the very short term so that this story can reach its tipping point and ride on the heels of the announcements from the Executive Branch tomorrow. We are also paying close attention to the potential impact of the CA Senate Bill 828 4th Amendment Protection Act enabling legal cover for non-cooperation with the NSA (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/new-california-state-legislation-seeks-to-thwart-nsa-spying/). sent from eddan.com On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Eddan Katz wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Deborah Brown > Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM > Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports > To: "" > > > Dear all, > > There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I don't think have been circulate here yet): > President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be streamed. > The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing two separate reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. > The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be officially released on 23 January and "public and unclassified". > The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on analysis of classified material and may have a classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not yet known. > > > Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed a letter (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its public comment period, urging the body to make recommendations to ensure that surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 meets international human rights standards. > > Below is a blog from Access with some more information. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless > Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? > 11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by Drew Mitnick (https://www.accessnow.org/blog/authors/43/Drew%20Mitnick) > > Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends at OpenTheGovernment.org (http://www.openthegovernment.org/) for this information. > > > Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (http://www.pclob.gov/) (PCLOB) released a statement (http://www.pclob.gov/SiteAssets/newsroom/PCLOB%20Press%20Statement_1.8.14.pdf) detailing plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA surveillance programs. The Board will release one report on metadata collection under PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January or early February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702, with an indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel report (https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth) by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, released in December 2013. > > > PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. First and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific recommendations that were lacking (https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth) in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of evidence that none of these answers are yes. > > > Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth? > > > Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has so far been underutilized (https://www.accessnow.org/blog/cautious-optimism-as-us-privacy-oversight-board-finally-confirms-chair) and hamstrung (https://www.accessnow.org/blog/privacy-board-awakens-after-nsa-spying-is-revealed). The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only full-time position, until May of last year (http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/sjc-chairman-leahy-hails-confirmation-of-privacy-board-chairman). PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, but have been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena power, and requisite security clearances (https://www.accessnow.org/blog/privacy-board-awakens-after-nsa-spying-is-revealed). And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has zero enforcement power (https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/what-powers-does-civil-liberties-oversight-board-have). > > > The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the PCLOB was not up for the task of effective oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27 included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or perhaps, “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass foreign intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate of FISA programs. > > > Will we see a public report on Section 702? > > > The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews of Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced (http://www.pclob.gov/SiteAssets/newsroom/PCLOB%20Press%20Statement_12.18.13.pdf) in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention of a public release, while stating that the report will address “classified materials.” The programs conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the least about. Some of the weakest parts (https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/09/review-groups-privacy-recommendations-for-non-u.s.-persons-lack-teeth) of the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains classified, efforts to reform these programs will be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on Section 702 programs. > > > Will Obama even listen? > > > Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will give weight to their recommendations. President Obama has announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance reforms on January 17th, just days before the first PCLOB report drops (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-08/obama-to-preempt-privacy-board-on-altering-nsa-spying.html). This timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 programs? Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after the President’s speech, these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the rights of non-US persons. > > > What does this mean? > > > In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment (http://www.noticeandcomment.com/PCLOB-2013-0005-0048-fcod-338145.aspx) period this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of recommendations, including some recommending greater rights protections for non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of others -- would be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with the public debate that precipitated the review, and will almost certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change. > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org (http://accessnow.org) > rightscon.org (http://rightscon.org) > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net (mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net). > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > Attachments: > - message-footer.txt > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Fri Jan 17 10:51:35 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:51:35 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: Thanks – looking forward to comments From: Marianne Franklin > Date: Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:57 To: andrew Puddephatt >, "parminder at itforchange.net" >, "" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Dear Andrew and all I have only now had a chance to peruse this analysis, and am reading it more closely now. Thank you for all this work on our behalf; having the survey results is a welcome addition to all our thinking in any case but having this analysis will provide a launchpad I hope for further discussion on this and other lists. Hopefully this thread can emerge as people have time to consider the outcomes. Back on that in due course! Cheers MF On 13/01/2014 16:08, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Thanks Parminder Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: 13 January 2014 13:44 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Thanks Andrew, a very important work.. Would comment later, but yes, it is this kind of clear positions on what one seeks that it needed at this stage. (Of course I do not agree with a good part of the analysis and conclusions/ outcomes :), and would engage in detail soon.) parminder On Monday 13 January 2014 05:35 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November. Taking advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Project. The results of our conversation are set out below and in a word attachment. Drawing upon the responses to the survey and other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at: · The case for reform · Possible criteria for reforming IG governance · An evaluation of the different proposals for reform · Preliminary conclusions. Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set out for an IG system, that a dispersed system of governance has more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of governance. We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining a distributed governance regime, but that it should be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about the options and risks here. It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from then list. To simplify things I suggest that people submit three categories of comments. 1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach put forward. I suggest that they develop their own approach find their own collaborators and work on their own ideas. May a hundred flowers bloom. 2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which require further discussion. I will then collect these put together an online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a structured fashion. 3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences. These I will collect and try and resolve through e-mail conversation. We’ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were represented. And although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by March 1st, this position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums. If you have other suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me know. Andrew Puddephatt Internet Governance: proposals for reform ***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project*** In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and other relevant forums – Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society organisations. In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors were aware of: 1. What is the case for reform of IG and do we have a common understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are? 2. If there is a case for reform what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic commitment to human rights and social justice? 3. How do the various proposals for reform stack up against these criteria – what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks and benefits. 4. What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the approach? The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and discussion. 1) Case for reform Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: · There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. · There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and language. · Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled. · The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. · Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. · There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest decisions. · There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the internet. · Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. · Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of “state sovereignty” on the global internet. · There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made – there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them. · The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as an international medium, and its international character and the benefits of free expression and access to information that it brings need to be preserved. · There is a unique property to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordination to make it effective. 2) Criteria for Internet Governance NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to unite around a core set of principles. After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were an essential element of any democratic international governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international governance rather than looking for criteria that only applied to the internet – in order to avoid the pitfalls of “internet exceptionalism”. Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally very weak lines of accountability between a government's positions on the international stage and its electorate back at home, open international spaces with broad-based participation can be important opportunities for bringing international decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the group found that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for assessing any proposed changes. The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena: a) Processes · Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; · Accountable: internal and external accountability process should exist, including a way of challenging decisions; · Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver · Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and developments in the field. b) Participation · Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many. · All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements · Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions · Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote. c) Underlying Values · Human rights values should be at the core of any governance process and outcomes. · Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global public good). 3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end of the document. UN Committee Model Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by governments. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and observers from international organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body – identifying issues raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific issues by rough consensus. Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet Democracy Project) This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then be responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to that issue. Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project) Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve experts and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project’s model appears to be more of a ‘proof of concept’ that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the models outlined above. Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political interests. As a single body with oversight – potentially – of all public policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that the body would not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create risks that those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a few times per year. Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet community. There were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn’t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from IGF discussions – this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group. The advantage of these models was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues are addressed. In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed approach where many institutions are involved in different aspects of internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate issues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised approach in the UN Committee model – and to a lesser extent Jeremy’s MIPC model. A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach. 4) Existing Institutions The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the ideas above considering the overall governance regime. IGF The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms were identified: · Providing stronger leadership; · A better funded and supported secretariat; · Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system; · Clearing house function; · More output-orientated; · Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for issues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way to global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels; · Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium businesses); · Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. ICANN In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including removing the privilege of the US which was seen as important though largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve both location and structure. However, the group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue. 5) Preliminary conclusions From deborah at accessnow.org Fri Jan 17 10:58:02 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:58:02 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is a link for the livestreaming of Obama's speech for those interested: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-signals-intelligence-programs * Starting in a few minutes. Embargoed copy attached. Best, Deborah On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Eddan Katz wrote: > And at the intersection of global and local, the Oakland Privacy Working > Group is setting its sights on shutting down funding for the Domain > Awareness Centers and their Fusion Centers. We're in the finally month of > opposition and think we have a chance to severely cut this off in Oakland > City Council in an upcoming Public Safety Committee vote. > > Here's our petition: > > https://www.change.org/petitions/the-mayor-and-city-council-of-oakland-ca-don-t-sell-out-the-people-of-oakland-to-the-department-of-homeland-security-don-t-vote-to-fund-the-domain-awareness-center > > We're hoping that some attention from digital rights networks will be > decisive in swaying the key votes. We are trying to get as many signatures > as possible in the very short term so that this story can reach its tipping > point and ride on the heels of the announcements from the Executive Branch > tomorrow. We are also paying close attention to the potential impact of the > CA Senate Bill 828 4th Amendment Protection Act enabling legal cover for > non-cooperation with the NSA ( > http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/new-california-state-legislation-seeks-to-thwart-nsa-spying/ > ). > > > sent from eddan.com > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Eddan Katz wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Deborah Brown* > Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM > Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports > To: "" > > > Dear all, > > There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of interest (and I > don't think have been circulate here yet): > > - President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA reform > this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I assume it will be > streamed. > - The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be issuing > two separate reports, instead of one, as initially anticipated. > - The first report will focus on metadata collection under Section > 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court > (FISC). It should be officially released on 23 January and "public and > unclassified". > - The second report will focus on the targeting of "non-U.S. > persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. While this report will be > public, it will rely on analysis of classified material and may have a > classified annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could make it > more difficult to advocate for reform of Section 702, i.e. the targeting of > so-called non-U.S. persons. AFAIK the release date on this report is not > yet known. > > Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network endorsed a > letter (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to PCLOB, during its > public comment period, urging the body to make recommendations to ensure > that surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 meets > international human rights standards. > > Below is a blog from Access with some more information. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless > Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? 11:56am | 14 January > 2014 | by *Drew Mitnick* > > *Update: We have since learned that the report on Section 702 will be > public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to our friends > at OpenTheGovernment.org for this > information.* > > Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) > released a statement detailing > plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA surveillance > programs. The Board will release one report on metadata collection under > PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court > (FISC), expected in late January or early February, and a second report on > the targeting of non-US persons under FISA Section 702, with an > indeterminate release date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel > report > by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications > Technologies, released in December 2013. > > PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our team. First > and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of specific > recommendations that were lacking > in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA 702 be > public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong reports, will the > Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of evidence that none of these > answers are yes. > > *Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth?* > > Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the Office > of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an independent > agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the President on civil liberties > in light of efforts to combat terrorism, but has so far been underutilized > and hamstrung. > The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only full-time > position, until May of last year. > PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, but have > been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena power, and requisite > security clearances. > And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a fundamental fact > remains: despite its oversight mandate, the PCLOB has zero enforcement > power > > The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its treatment > by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly acknowledged the > PCLOB was not up for the task of effective oversight as currently > structured. The Review Group’s Recommendation 27 included a call to > increase PCLOB’s power by recrafting it into an oversight body with the > name of the Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or > perhaps, “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow > authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass foreign > intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate of FISA programs. > > *Will we see a public report on Section 702?* > > The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the reviews of > Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced > in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement may > provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and the FISC will be > “public and unclassified,” but its report on Section 702 makes no mention > of a public release, while stating that the report will address “classified > materials.” The programs conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the > greatest impact on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the > least about. Some of the weakest parts of > the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections on > treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB report remains > classified, efforts to reform these programs will be severely hindered. We > urge PCLOB to release an unclassified version of its report on Section 702 > programs. > > *Will Obama even listen?* > > Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the reports, > there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will give weight to > their recommendations. President Obama has announced he will make a speech > on his proposed surveillance reforms on January 17th, just days before > the first PCLOB report drops > . This timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any > criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, while > simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be leading on reform > efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended reforms on the Section 702 > programs? Without a public report, and with a release date of weeks after > the President’s speech, these may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim > scenario for the rights of non-US persons. > > *What does this mean?* > > In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and comment period > this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of > recommendations, including some recommending greater rights protections for > non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the Section 702 programs. At the > time, we expected that our inputs -- and those of dozens of others -- would > be the basis for a transparent public review and recommendations. A secret > review of a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces > the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass surveillance > programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with the public debate that > precipitated the review, and will almost certainly fail to effect any > meaningful or accountable change. > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > Attachments: > - message-footer.txt > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2014sigint.mem.ppd.rel.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 152617 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ellanso at cdt.org Fri Jan 17 12:13:54 2014 From: ellanso at cdt.org (Emma Llanso) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:13:54 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52D964D2.3070507@cdt.org> And a few more links related to today's speech (which just concluded): Text of the speech: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/01/text-of-the-presidents-remarks-on-nsa-and-surveillance/ "Fact sheet" from the White House summarizing the President's review and planned/proposed reforms: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EREkBVf9I5HQEkjRASDPkgIPOZ38lBKpEr8xh4sV9LY/preview?sle=true&pli=1 The Presidential Policy Directive that will implement some of the reforms: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1006318/2014sigint-mem-ppd-rel.pdf Best, Emma -- Emma J. Llansó Director, Free Expression Project Center for Democracy & Technology 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech | @ellanso On 1/17/14, 10:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Here is a link for the livestreaming of Obama's speech for those > interested: > > _http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-signals-intelligence-programs_ > > Starting in a few minutes. > > Embargoed copy attached. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Eddan Katz > wrote: > > And at the intersection of global and local, the Oakland Privacy > Working Group is setting its sights on shutting down funding for > the Domain Awareness Centers and their Fusion Centers. We're in > the finally month of opposition and think we have a chance > to severely cut this off in Oakland City Council in an upcoming > Public Safety Committee vote. > > Here's our petition: > https://www.change.org/petitions/the-mayor-and-city-council-of-oakland-ca-don-t-sell-out-the-people-of-oakland-to-the-department-of-homeland-security-don-t-vote-to-fund-the-domain-awareness-center > > > We're hoping that some attention from digital rights networks will > be decisive in swaying the key votes. We are trying to get as many > signatures as possible in the very short term so that this story > can reach its tipping point and ride on the heels of the > announcements from the Executive Branch tomorrow. We are also > paying close attention to the potential impact of the CA Senate > Bill 828 4th Amendment Protection Act enabling legal cover for > non-cooperation with the NSA > (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/new-california-state-legislation-seeks-to-thwart-nsa-spying/). > > > sent from eddan.com > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Eddan Katz wrote: > >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Deborah Brown* > > >> Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM >> Subject: [bestbits] Update on NSA reform/PCLOB reports >> To: "> >" >> > >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> There are a few developments from the U.S. that may be of >> interest (and I don't think have been circulate here yet): >> >> * President Obama is expected to make a major speech on NSA >> reform this Friday (17 January) at 11:00 EST (time TBC). I >> assume it will be streamed. >> * The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be >> issuing two separate reports, instead of one, as initially >> anticipated. >> o The first report will focus on metadata collection under >> Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign >> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It should be >> officially released on 23 January and "public and >> unclassified". >> o The second report will focus on the targeting of >> "non-U.S. persons", Section 702 of the FISA Amendments >> Act. While this report will be public, it will rely on >> analysis of classified material and may have a classified >> annex. Classifying critical elements of the report could >> make it more difficult to advocate for reform of Section >> 702, i.e. the targeting of so-called non-U.S. persons. >> AFAIK the release date on this report is not yet known. >> >> Back in July, a number of participants in the Best Bits network >> endorsed a letter (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) submitted to >> PCLOB, during its public comment period, urging the body to make >> recommendations to ensure that surveillance of communications >> conducted under Section 702 meets international human rights >> standards. >> >> Below is a blog from Access with some more information. >> >> Kind regards, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/01/14/anticipated-pclob-reports-classified-toothless >> >> >> Anticipated PCLOB reports: Classified? Toothless? >> >> >> 11:56am | 14 January 2014 | by *Drew Mitnick* >> >> >> /*Update:* We have since learned that the report on Section 702 >> will be public, though it may have a classified annex. Thanks to >> our friends at OpenTheGovernment.org >> for this information./ >> >> Last week, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board >> (PCLOB) released a statement >> detailing >> plans to release not just one, but two reports on NSA >> surveillance programs. The Board will release one report on >> metadata collection under PATRIOT Act Section 215 and the Foreign >> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), expected in late January >> or early February, and a second report on the targeting of non-US >> persons under FISA Section 702, with an indeterminate release >> date. These reports come on the heels of a parallel report >> >> by the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and >> Communications Technologies, released in December 2013. >> >> PCLOB’s release last week raised a number of questions for our >> team. First and foremost, will the PCLOB reports have the bite of >> specific recommendations that were lacking >> >> in the Review Group’s report? Critically, will the report on FISA >> 702 be public or classified? If the PCLOB does release strong >> reports, will the Obama administration listen? There’s plenty of >> evidence that none of these answers are yes. >> >> *Will the PCLOB recommendations have teeth?* >> >> Unlike the President’s Review Group, which was convened under the >> Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the PCLOB is an >> independent agency. It was created in 2004 to advise the >> President on civil liberties in light of efforts to combat >> terrorism, but has so far been underutilized >> and >> hamstrung >> . >> The Senate failed to even approve a chairman, the Board’s only >> full-time position, until May of last year >> . >> PCLOB’s work marginally increased after the Snowden revelations, >> but have been hampered by a lack of budget, staff, subpoena >> power, and requisite security clearances >> . >> And even if these structural deficits were resolved, a >> fundamental fact remains: despite its oversight mandate, the >> PCLOB has zero enforcement power >> >> >> The PCLOB’s disadvantaged position was only underscored by its >> treatment by the recent report by the Review Group, which tacitly >> acknowledged the PCLOB was not up for the task of effective >> oversight as currently structured. The Review Group’s >> Recommendation 27 included a call to increase PCLOB’s power by >> recrafting it into an oversight body with the name of the Civil >> Liberties and Privacy Protection Board (CLPP -- or perhaps, >> “clipboard”). The changes would expand the PCLOB’s narrow >> authority from terrorism-related policy issues to encompass >> foreign intelligence, in order to better align with the mandate >> of FISA programs. >> >> *Will we see a public report on Section 702?* >> >> The decision by the PCLOB to release two reports segmenting the >> reviews of Section 215 and 702 programs was quietly announced >> >> in December. Why two? The language of the most recent statement >> may provide a hint: It indicates the report on Section 215 and >> the FISC will be “public and unclassified,” but its report on >> Section 702 makes no mention of a public release, while stating >> that the report will address “classified materials.” The programs >> conducted under Section 702 are the ones with the greatest impact >> on non-U.S. persons, and are the ones we still know the least >> about. Some of the weakest parts >> of >> the President’s Review Group’s recommendations were the sections >> on treatment of non-US persons under Section 702. If the PCLOB >> report remains classified, efforts to reform these programs will >> be severely hindered. We urge PCLOB to release an unclassified >> version of its report on Section 702 programs. >> >> *Will Obama even listen?* >> >> Unfortunately, regardless of the classification levels of the >> reports, there’s little to indicate the Obama administration will >> give weight to their recommendations. President Obama has >> announced he will make a speech on his proposed surveillance >> reforms on January 17th,just days before the first PCLOB report >> drops >> .This >> timing will allow the administration to get out ahead of any >> criticisms the PCLOB report may make on the Section 215 programs, >> while simultaneously allowing the White House to appear to be >> leading on reform efforts. And as for the PCLOB’s recommended >> reforms on the Section 702 programs? Without a public report, and >> with a release date of weeks after the President’s speech, these >> may be long lost to the newscycle -- a grim scenario for the >> rights of non-US persons. >> >> *What does this mean?* >> >> In preparing its report, the PCLOB held an open notice and >> comment >> period >> this past autumn. We submitted a comment containing a number of >> recommendations, including some recommending greater rights >> protections for non-US persons, specifically pertaining to the >> Section 702 programs. At the time, we expected that our inputs -- >> and those of dozens of others -- would be the basis for a >> transparent public review and recommendations. A secret review of >> a secret program is unacceptable: a classified report reinforces >> the cloak of secrecy around the global scope of the NSA's mass >> surveillance programs under Section 702, is entirely at odds with >> the public debate that precipitated the review, and will almost >> certainly fail to effect any meaningful or accountable change. >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | accessnow.org >> rightscon.org >> >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> Attachments: >> - message-footer.txt > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Fri Jan 17 13:47:06 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:47:06 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] CS Representation on Brazil Committees In-Reply-To: <05596A5E-69F5-4186-99B2-3B0E400C004E@glocom.ac.jp> References: <0A389DE0532A4D0E8AAC2E842C20C490@Toshiba> <8C68C3E8-419D-465D-92F0-3BCC230D7989@gmail.com> <05596A5E-69F5-4186-99B2-3B0E400C004E@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Congratulations to both the selected nominees and the NomCom! m. On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > I join Izumi and all others in thanking the NomCom for taking up a > difficult task and completing this process in such a good manner. > > I am thankful for the trust and will give my very best to carry out the > tasks ahead. Rolling up my sleeves here and looking forward to the next > steps and to our discussions :) > > Marília > > > > > > Very much share Marilia's sentiments -- thanks NomCom, thanks for your > trust. > > Adam > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > +1. > > > > Especially for the hard and difficult work of the Nomcom and its Chair. > > > > izumi > > > > > > 2014/1/15 William Drake > > Hi > > > > Excellent group, congrats to the nomcom! > > > > Bill > > > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > >> I am pleased to announce the following selections for the Brazil > Committees on behalf of the Civil Society Coordination Group. Many thanks > to all the organisations and individuals who co –operated in this > collaborative effort and to those who contributed to a very talented list > of names for consideration > >> > >> High Level Committee > >> > >> Jovan Kurbalija > >> Stephanie Perrin > >> Louis Pouzin > >> > >> Executive Multistakeholder Committee > >> > >> Adam Peake > >> Marilia Maciel > >> > >> Biographical details appear below. > >> > >> The representatives were chosen from a field of 33 applications for HLC > and 24 applications for EMC, drawn from a widely disseminated call for > nominations across various civil society networks, including IGC, Best > Bits, APC, NCSG, Diplo, and associated civil society networks , and > including nominations from other CS individuals as well. No nominations > were denied full consideration. > >> > >> The full list of candidates was posted on the main civil society lists > some time ago (let me know if you need a copy). We thank all the volunteers > who put their names forward – this was an incredibly talented field and > making decisions on final candidates was subsequently a significant > challenge. > >> > >> The selections were made by a Nomcom consisting of Virginia Paque > (Diplo Foundation), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits), Chat Garcia Ramilo (APC) > and Robin Gross (NCSG). Ian Peter was an independent non voting Chair. > >> > >> We realise that some aspects of these selections will be controversial. > We have attempted to find a balance (among the candidates who best fit our > criteria for selection) between such factors as gender, geography, > advocacy, knowledge, expertise, and constituency. Geography in particular > was a challenge in finalising our HLC candidates – but we did note very > strong support from a number of prominent third world centred organisations > and individuals for Louis Pouzin, and trust that the perspectives and > advocacy he will bring to the discussions will ensure that important issues > of concern to many members of civil society are not neglected. > >> > >> Biographical details are below. > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter (non voting Chair) > >> > >> BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS > >> > >> Dr Jovan Kurbalija is the founding director of DiploFoundation. He is a > former diplomat with a professional and academic background in > international law, diplomacy, and information technology. In 1992, he > established the Unit for IT and Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of > Diplomatic Studies in Malta. In 2002, after more than ten years of > successful work in training, research, and publishing, the Unit evolved > into DiploFoundation. > >> > >> Dr Kurbalija directs online learning courses on ICT and diplomacy and > lectures in academic and training institutions in Switzerland, the United > States, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Malta. His main > areas of research are diplomacy and the development of an international > Internet regime, the use of hypertext in diplomacy, online negotiations and > diplomatic law. > >> > >> Stephanie Perrin is recognized as an international expert in privacy > and data protection and the social impact of technology, and is conducting > doctoral research focused on privacy enhanced authentication technologies. > Stephanie is a NCSG/NCUC member and has been a strong advocate for privacy > on the ICANN Expert Working Group on Directory Services (aka "whois") for > the last year. Her experience includes several positions in the Canadian > Government, including in Integrity Services at Service Canada, as Director > of Research and Policy in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and as > Director of Privacy Policy at Industry Canada where she was responsible for > the development of the private sector privacy legislation (PIPEDA). She has > worked in the private sector and has consulted broadly on privacy issues > internationally, including advising on the first privacy policy for CIRA, > the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. She is based in Canada. > >> > >> Louis Pouzin is one of the pioneers in computer communications and the > Internet. He designed and directed the development of the Cyclades network > in France, the first to use datagrams and matching end-to-end protocols, > later adopted by the Internet. He is now retired and contributes to several > associations and working groups related to Internet development. He has > received ACM SIGCOMM and IEEE Internet awards and is a member of the > Internet Hall of Fame. He graduated from Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, and > has published 82 articles and a book on computer networks. Louis is a > founder or Eurolinc and has been a strong advocate in internet governance > discussions. > >> > >> Adam Peake is a senior researcher at the Center for Global > Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan. He works on > telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, and follow-up activities > for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Adam has been > active in policy-making activities for the deployment and development of > the Internet since the mid-1990s. He is an expert on the development and > deployment of the broadband networks, services and applications in Japan, > and has conducted numerous studies for Japanese corporate clients on > telecommunications/Internet/ICTs in the United States, Europe, Africa and > Asia. Adam teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students at > the International University of Japan and is a former co ordinator of the > Internet Governance Caucus. > >> > >> Marília Maciel works as a professor of Intellectual Property Law and > also as a researcher at the Center for Technology and Society of the > Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), in Brazil. She leads project Cultura > Livre (Free Culture), which investigates how new media reshapes > intellectual property and impacts cultural production and distribution. She > also represents FGV at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related > Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). > Marília has a Masters degree on Latin American Integration from the Federal > University of Santa Maria and a Law degree from the Federal University of > Pernambuco. She has been a tutor in the Internet Governance Capacity > Building Programme, organized by DiploFoundation since 2008. She is also a > member of the Remote Participation Working Group, composed by individuals > from different countries who have joined together with the concern to > enhance remote attendance in the Internet Governance Fórum. > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> > >> 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 > > *********************************************** > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > > Japan > > www.anr.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Marília Maciel > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jan 7 09:14:36 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 19:44:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52CBFE4F.3090502@itforchange.net> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> ,<1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> <169139709.7007.1389085610684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> <52CBFE4F.3090502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CC0BCC.3080303@itforchange.net> I too strongly support Norbert's candidature. In fact, in preference to my own... Now, if this is not too complex a deal for the selecting committee to understand and undertake, I suggest the following: That the committee considers Norbert's name in preference to mine, and *if* he is selected for the executive committee, I will consider myself, and those nominating me, represented. However if he is not being selected, *my nomination stands*.... Request, not to make any mistake on this :) . Same for the High Level Committee about Roberto Savio, Sean O Siochru and Roberto Bissio (and Louis Pouzin, if as Daniel indicated, he is being considered). *If* any of these are being selected for the HL Committee, I have no desire to be considered. But again, if they are not, *my nomination stands*... Hoping that this makes the task of the committee simpler, which is the intention, rather than make it more complex. parminder On Tuesday 07 January 2014 06:47 PM, anita wrote: > I would also like to strongly support Norbert's candidature > > anita > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 02:36 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> >> + one for Norbert >> >> with my best wishes for a succesful mandate >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 07/01/14 08:25 >> > De : "Grace Githaiga" >> > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Mawaki Chango" >> > Copie à : "Norbert Bollow" , "Ian Peter" , "Jeremy Malcolm" >> > Objet : RE: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >> > >> > >> + 1 for Nobert. >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch; >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com; jeremy at ciroap.org >> > From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net >> > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500 >> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; kichango at gmail.com >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >> > >> > >> I also support Norbert's candidacy. >> >> > >> Cheers, >> >> > -- >> Catherine Roy >> www.catherine-roy.net >> >> > On 2014-01-06, at 18:01, Mawaki Chango > > wrote: >> > >> > >> >> I support Norbert's self-nomination/expression of interest to >> serve on the Executive Committee. >> I am confident he will be a great asset for ensuring the >> inclusion of broader civil society perspectives during the >> agenda setting exercise for the BR meeting. >> Thanks, >> >> > >> Mawaki >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: >> > >> >> Jeremy and Ian and all, >> > >> > this is an expression of interest to serve on the >> Executive Committee >> > for the São Paulo meeting. >> > >> > My chief interest in this context is to contribute to >> ensuring that >> > the agenda setting process for the São Paulo meeting >> will be >> > sufficiently inclusive of all relevant perspectives: Of >> course a single >> > two-days event that aims to reach a consensus on an >> outcome document >> > cannot productively address a too big range of topics, >> but I would >> > insist that it is critically important to carefully >> ensure that the >> > framing of the discourse on those topics is open enough >> that no kinds >> > of perspectives, especially no civil society >> perspectves, are excluded >> > from the outset. >> > >> > Brief biography: Born in Germany in 1968 and attended >> public schools >> > there; moved to Switzerland in 1985 and studied >> mathematics and physics >> > and some informatics in Zurich. Significant technical >> experience >> > especially with FOSS technologies and standardization >> work. Active in >> > organized civil society processes related to IT and the >> Internet since >> > 2004. Careful to keep the topics of civil society >> engagement separated >> > clearly from the topics of business interests. >> > >> > Relevant experience includes: >> > * Chairmanship of the “Swiss Internet User Group” >> (SIUG), 2006-2009. >> > * Having successfully negotiated, as a civil society >> person, with >> > Microsoft a fix to their patent non-assertion pledge >> regarding OOXML >> > and some other specifications to resolve a potential >> patent threat >> > to GPL-licensed software. (PJ of Groklaw was so >> surprised that she >> > published a picture of a flying pig, in relation to >> this.) >> > * Chairmanship of the Swiss mirror committee for >> international >> > standards on “Document Description and Processing >> Languages". >> > * Participation in the drafting process for the outcome >> document of >> > the 2013 WSIS+10 review event in Paris. >> > * Having served as a co-coordinator of the IGC for most >> of 2013. >> > * Participated and organized workshops at multiple >> IGFs. This includes >> > successful cooperation with the “focal points” for >> the CSTD Enhanced >> > Cooperation WG for all non-governmental stakeholder >> constituencies to >> > hold a workshop at the Bali IGF on “MS selection >> processes: >> > accountability and transparency” (workshop 127). >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > >> > >> > Am Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 >> > schrieb "Ian Peter" > >: >> > >> >> > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil >> society on planning >> > > committees in preparations for the “Global >> Multistakeholder Meeting >> > > on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo >> Brazil on April 23 >> > > and 24 2014. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level >> Committee (HLC) >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > This committee will set the high ­level political >> tone and objectives >> > > of the >> > > >> > > conference. Committee members will engage on a >> global level with >> > > stakeholders to >> > > >> > > encourage participation in the conference and >> maximize its chances of >> > > success. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > This committee will include 4 civil society >> representatives. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive >> Committee (EC) >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > This committee owns the full responsibility of >> organizing the event, >> > > including: defining >> > > >> > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, >> organizing input >> > > received into a coherent set of proposals for the >> conferees to >> > > address, managing conference proceedings and process, >> and directing >> > > all communications activities pre/­during/­post >> conference. This >> > > committee will include 2 civil society representatives >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest >> is midnight UTC 7 >> > > January 2014. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a >> brief biography and >> > > a statement of relevant background and experience in >> response to this >> > > topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to >> > > ian.peter at ianpeter.com >> (pending the appointment >> of a replacement IGC >> > > representative on the co-ordination group). At the >> closing date for >> > > nominations, nominations submitted to various civil >> society networks >> > > will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co >> ordination >> > > Group. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your >> application whether >> > > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive >> Committee (EC) >> > > or both. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > CRITERIA >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The following factors (among others) will be used to >> assess the >> > > suitability of candidates >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, >> not just your >> > > individual civil society organisation(s) >> > > >> > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other >> stakeholder groups in a >> > > multistakeholder setting >> > > >> > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society >> groups and to >> > > report back as the process progresses >> > > >> > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a >> senior level in these >> > > discussions >> > > >> > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues >> and the range >> > > of civil society perspectives on these issues >> > > >> > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and >> creatively >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Explanation of process >> > > >> > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak >> body that came >> > > together this year to facilitate joint civil society >> participation in >> > > several nominating processes. It currently comprises >> persons from >> > > the most active civil society coalitions or networks >> in the Internet >> > > governance space, which in no particular order are >> the Internet >> > > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the >> Non Commercial >> > > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for >> Progressive >> > > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia >> Paque, Jeremy >> > > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian >> Peter as an >> > > independent facilitator. Its current composition is >> imperfect - the >> > > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, >> and so is the >> > > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we >> are reaching out >> > > to other civil society networks to further broaden >> the inclusiveness >> > > of the group and have developed a draft set of >> criteria to assist in >> > > this process. >> > > >> > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching >> consensus is also a >> > > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the >> process have >> > > been put in place since the group's first nomination. >> These >> > > improvements include refinement of criteria for each >> member network >> > > to consider when putting forward names for >> consideration. Other >> > > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >> > > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met >> with consensual >> > > support from within the group and so have not been >> adopted for this >> > > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes >> other >> > > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >> > > >> > > Ian Peter >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > -- > > *Anita Gurumurthy*| Executive Director > IT for Change > (/In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)/ > 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 > Email:anita at itforchange.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > /Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net > > > / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics2 Type: image/png Size: 676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics3 Type: image/png Size: 298 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics4 Type: image/png Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 17 23:06:57 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:36:57 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched In-Reply-To: <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> On Friday 17 January 2014 07:30 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > > Michael, > > I fully agree that there should be diversity of perspectives/concerns > present in the SC, and that the current CS representatives do not > formally represent all these. However, only 5 people (CS reps in the > SC) - whoever they would be (me, you or anyone else) - can't possibly > formally represent the full diversity of the CS; we would need dozens > of representatives. What is important is that they care about > diversity of perspectives/concerns and make sure to bring these into > SC discussions at all points. Your detailed input about the > Declaration are much appreciated and this is a good example of what > should be seriously taken into consideration also, and there are many > other relevant documents and concerns as well (as you rightly > mentioned marginalised group, persons with disabilities, and others). > > So let's make sure that the 5 CS reps. pick up the diversity from 1Net > list and other CS discussion fora, and bring this diversity to the SC > table. I will do my best, and I am sure the others will as well. > Vlada You cannot in this manner post facto technical-ize an essentially political issue... And if indeed everything is so simple why did not the repsof the 4 groups in the CS CC just not allow the Community Informatics Network (CIN) rep also be a part of the selection panel? Do you think that it is a fake group... Denying political space and role to different groups, and the corresponding claims of those so denied, are both highly political acts... And they are best treated as such... It is not quite right that those who participate actively in such political acts, and obtain political roles (quite a legitimate thing to do), then hold forth on how people should not aspire for such spaces/positions... No personal offence implied, but lets not side step serious issues. Some claims may be weightier than others, and that is fine. Some kind of sorting out would need to be done as part of a political process. One can discuss that. It is entirely possible that Diplo Foundation and its alumuni brings better and more effective (both criteria being important) representation of what is normally considered civil society interests than the Community Informatics Network (CIN) does. It is also entirely possible that NCUC deals with issues more salient to general people (civil society) than does CIN. All of this is quite possible. But such should be the bases, or not, for some group being in there and other not being there. All this is entirely political, as IG is political. Those who dont think it is political, can as well step out of the space and let those who consider it is political represent them... The primary purpose of my comment is just to speak out against technicalizing issues of representation. Can you say with confidence that you and other members of the concerned committee or whatever will, say, push the perspectives in the CI's Internet declaration as you would the position i have heard you articulate. Or others in these committees will do so vis a vis the positions I have seen them so strongly advocate, and also strategize so actively around. Lets be real. We need diversity in the people who represent and not just the views that they claim they will pick up and push with equal force.. Also, is it not interesting that reps of four CS groups who are a part of the selection process selected 5 persons for the 1Net committee, all of which belong to the management structures of these four CS groups.. Indeed, quite a diversity seeking exercise! Could they not find one person from outside, from the whole universe of civil society! Is this not a high degree of insularity. And now these homilies, on being good and nice people... Before advice pours in to take such issues off this list, I must add that civil society is always about a bit of a chaos.... Les our friends from outside civil society learn the culture. regards , parminder > Best, > > Vlada > > PS. As I mentioned several times: all these are only my personal > opinions, not on behalf of CS members in SC or anyone else. I am not a > spoke-person, I am just currently the loudest one :) > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 16 January 2014 00:41 > *To:* 'Vladimir Radunovic' > *Cc:* discuss at 1net.org > *Subject:* RE: Selection RE: [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR > meeting site launched > > Vlada, > > Thank you for your comments and let me reply inline... > > *From:*Vladimir Radunovic [mailto:vladar at diplomacy.edu] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:50 AM > *To:* 'michael gurstein' > *Cc:* discuss at 1net.org > *Subject:* Selection RE: [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR > meeting site launched > > Michael, > > I have missed that question with a purpose - there have been lots of > discussions on that, and in this thread I wanted to raise some other > issues for discussion as well. > > */[MG>] yes, there has been some discussion on the issues that I've > raised but so far no one from the 1net Steering Committee, 1net, the > groups self-selecting for the Steering Committee, or the groups > self-nominating for the self-selecting groups for the Nominating > Committee have provided any rationale or argument in support of what I > think is an unsupportable position.../* > > I owe you my views on the issue of SC legitimacy as well, nevertheless: > > While I am not acquainted with the details of the selection process, I > am aware from discussions that it was not perfect. > > */[MG>] If you aren't aware of the selection process, that suggests > that there may not have been one... basically it was a few mates > sitting in a circle and saying who from our circle shall we get to > front this one/* > > *//* > > Yet I do find it a solid base for improvements for future occasions, > as for once civil society managed to come up with something to further > work on. > > */[MG>] no, a self-selected group purporting to represent Civil > Society but in fact only representing primarily themselves came up > with something again primarily to serve themselves/* > > *//* > > Selecting the civil society representatives is a complex issue, I am > aware, as one can't use classic "representational democracy" model -- > > */[MG>] agree/* > > *//* > > instead, we need to focus on searching for persons with and > credibility, experience, skills and knowledge that hopefully have > strong support among the CS groups = > > */[MG>] and who apart from these self-selected groups determined that > this particular group of individuals had the degree of /*integrity and > credibility, experience, skills and knowledge */and only they had the > required characteristics... certainly being self-selected from the > self-selected CS groups they had strong support but since the circle > was closed it is hard to accept or know whether they had strong > support from anyone else or whether anyone else could have been found > who had more support or better filled the criteria/* > > *//* > > those persons we believe will fairly represent diversity of views > that exist in CS. > > */[MG>] what possible basis do you have for that belief... I see no > participation from Indigenous Peoples, people with Disabilities, poor > people's organizations, actual Internet users (and non-users) as > opposed to those talking about the use of the Internet by > others---those are the people of whom CS overwhelming consists and I > see no basis to believe that the current self-appointed group in any > way "represents" their views among other in the "diversity that exist > in CS".../* > > *//* > > My confidence in this selection process came from my confidence in the > nominating committee members and their integrity and credibility. > > */[MG>] I'm delighted that you have confidence in those who chose you > and in the self-selected group of which your own organization is an > active member... and the other of those organizations who equally > chose their own members for these positions, but so far you have given > no arguments why anyone else beyond that circle should share your > confidence and in the absence of any reasonable arguments you have > further undermined any reason for anyone beyond your narrow circle(s) > to accept this/* > > *//* > > If they made mistakes as you say, I believe that - and doom me for > that or call me naive - it was not with mal intention and it is > something they and all of us can work on in future to improve. In all > the circumstances I do think that the SC is legitimate, though > admitting the selection process needs improvements. With all this, I > do hope that also you believe in my personal integrity and credibility > to represent you and diversity of CS views in the SC; if not, I will > give my best to show that you should - and please help me do that by > both criticizing and supporting my takes. > > */[MG>] Vlada, I don't know you directly and thus I can have no > opinion on your integrity etc./* > > *//* > > */But let me be quite direct.../* > > *//* > > */The Community Informatics community recently and in the context of > the Brazil meeting published a /**/Declaration/* > */. That > Declaration has now been signed on to by dozens of organizations > globally including the Indigenous ICT Task Force, Telecommunities > Canada, the First Mile Institute (New Mexico), Women be Free (Benin), > the global P2P Foundation, the International Alliance on Information > for All, the Open Technology Institute (USA), the RCM Participatory > Foundation (Italy) and over 100 individuals including the Founding > Director of Siyafunda (South Africa), the head of the Global Community > Network Initiative (Austria), the UNESCO Chair at the University of > Strasbourg, a leading official of the Broadband Commission, and a very > very broad band of grassroots ICT activists, academics and just plain > users from all parts of the world. /* > > *//* > > */However, from a fairly close observation not one of those currently > active in IG CS and certainly none of those who have been currently > nominated for positions representing either civil society or academia > have chosen to endorse this Declaration./* > > *//* > > */Of course, you and your colleagues in these positions can choose to > endorse whatever you like but since none of you have chosen to endorse > the Declaration of the Community Informatics community don't purport > to say that you are fully representative of civil society of which the > CI community is most definitely a part (unless you and your colleagues > choose a definition where only those who you folks designate as CS can > in fact be CS) or that you represent the diversity of CS positions. > That is totally and manifestly incorrect./* > > *//* > > */The Declaration points to issues and norms that we feel need to be > expressed in the context of the Brazil meeting and from what I have > seen I have absolutely no confidence that unless we are given an > opportunity to be represented at all levels in the planning of the > event that many of those issues will not in fact be presented for > discussion and the voices of those whose lived reality underlie those > issues will have no opportunity to be heard./* > > *//* > > */I must say further that I find this to be particularly outrageous > since the Declaration's concerns for the distributional effects of the > Internet so closely mirror the actions of President Rousseff and her > party in Brazil having undertaken social and distributional programs > which have moved 10s of millions of her fellow citizens out of > poverty. The concerns of the Community Informatics community in > ensuring that the Internet is an element in similarly ensuring the > widest possible distribution of economic benefits and similarly in > advocating measures to overcome any inequalities that might be arising > as a result of the differential distribution of benefits arising from > the transformations that the Internet is bringing about need to be > heard as part of the upcoming meeting. And I have absolutely no > confidence or reason to have confidence that any of those currently > representing "civil society" will in fact present those concerns among > others./* > > *//* > > */Vlada, I acknowledge and have considerable respect for the > individuals and organizations and for the concerns that they represent > of which apparently you are now the spokesperson. I wonder what might > be the motivation to not accord my colleagues and I and the concerns > that we are presenting the same degree of acknowledgement and respect./* > > *//* > > */Mike/* > > Best! > > Vlada > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 15 January 2014 17:04 > *To:* 'Vladimir Radunovic'; discuss at 1net.org > *Subject:* RE: [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site > launched > > Vlada, > > It seems to me that you have missed the first and most significant > question which needs to be asked i.e. on what basis do you derive the > legitimacy to undertake any of the tasks as indicated in your > subsequent questions. > > Contra Milton, you cannot simply pull this legitimacy and authority to > act out of the air, assume it by some form of divine right, seize it > through the de facto occupancy of some type of electronic space or > other similarly illegitimate contrivance. > > Your legitimacy has in this instance, to come from the identification > of a constituency who, through a set of agreed upon procedures have > granted you that legitimacy to act on their behalf so long as your > actions are consistent with those procedures. In this case, you (or > rather your nominators) have misidentified your constituency (as being > representative of all of CS as a stakeholder group), failed to > identify a set of appropriate procedures on the basis of which your > legitimacy could be granted (appropriately transparent and accountable > selection procedures for your individual nominations) and only > function on the basis of an external body (1net) having accorded you > legitimacy even though they themselves quite evidently lack any form > of legitimacy as per the above ... > > Mike > > *From:*discuss-bounces at 1net.org > [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] *On > Behalf Of *Vladimir Radunovic > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:07 PM > *To:* discuss at 1net.org > *Subject:* [discuss] 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched > > Dear colleagues, > > ahead of the first (and constitutive) meeting of the 1Net Steering > committee in the following days, and thinking about the substantial > questions related to 1Net (many been discussed already on this list), > please share your views on the following: > > 1.How do you see the role and potentials of 1Net? What should be its > task in a wider IG context? > > (Taking into account the discussed views that it might have been > started with particular intentions and following particular interests, > but now providing (or hoping) that 1Net would be able to resist these > and gradually establish its legitimacy in the wider community) > > 2.What should be the role of 1Net towards major IG fora - IGF, ICANN, > ITU, and other? > > 3.What relation should 1Net have with the Brazil meeting? > > The Brazilian organisers suggested in a press release (and as Anja > clarified: 1Net has not been consulted on nor has decided on any of > these, so we can only understand this as suggestions) several roles > for 1Net, including the "partnership" in organising the Brazil > event... Should 1Net be a partner, and if so how should it contribute > to Brazil meeting (and how it should not)? > > I am sure all the members of the Steering Committee would appreciate > variety of views on these. > > Thank you! > > Best, > > Vlada > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Sat Jan 18 09:29:37 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:59:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Obama's NSA speech: an affirmation that mass surveillance has a future Message-ID: <52DA8FD1.2030404@ITforChange.net> excerpt "The Mozilla Foundation – the internet non-profit that makes, among other things, the Firefox browser – reacted to Obama’s speech in a way that pointed to the path not taken. “Overall, the strategy seems to be to leave current intelligence processes largely intact and improve oversight to a degree,” it said in a statement. “We’d hoped for, and the internet deserves, more. Without a meaningful change of course, the internet will continue on its path toward a world of balkanization and distrust, a grave departure from its origins of openness and opportunity.” Whatever direction that path takes, Obama has reaffirmed the NSA’s largely unfettered ability to exploit it. The reality is that the limits of technology – not policy, which can be manipulated, and not law, which can be finessed – are the NSA’s most important restrictions...." end excerpt This is something for global civil society to take serious note of and respond to. And apart from responding, civil society needs to work pro-actively to end the current USG dominance which enables inter alia, such widespread surveillance. regards, Guru source - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/obama-nsa-speech-surveillance-reforms-fight?CMP=twt_gu Barack Obama’s rhetoric in his big surveillance speech on Friday was pleasing to privacy advocates. But the substance of his proposals for the future of mass data collection amount to a gift for the National Security Agency. The battle over the future of surveillance now shifts from the White House to Capitol Hill, where Obama conceded that legislation will be necessary on practically all of his desired proposals – terrain very favorable to the NSA, and where it has a major opportunity to rebrand itself with a forthcoming leader. Obama’s remarks about the importance of privacy obscured that he has not closed any door on the world’s most powerful surveillance agency. The ones that appear closed depend on crucial details that Obama has left unresolved, even after seven months of congressional hearings , two conflicting public federal court rulings , and a voluminous report by his own surveillance advisers. Most significant is Obama’s call for the government to relinquish the collection of records of every phone call made in the United States. But it’s too soon to determine if bulk collection actually ends, or merely transfers to a private custodian on behalf of the NSA. Obama did not resolve whether a post-government collection of metadata ought to require an individualized showing of a plausible connection to terrorism, which would be determined in advance by a judge in all but exceptional cases. That’s how investigations over personal data typically work, and the reason why the laws governing them have always been about the terms under which the government can get the data in the first place. But NSA has argued, with great success, that the relevant privacy protection ought to surround when it gets to study the data – taking its access to the data for granted. The mere fact that the data will transition out of government hands is less than meets the eye. Obama conceded to NSA’s favor a point in serious dispute: that the NSA must have access to a massive pool of domestic phone data. Once that concession is made, the logical contour of a private repository for metadata storage lends itself to being comprehensive – far beyond the current amount of data each company holds before purging it. In order for metadata analysis to add any value at all, NSA has said it needs the whole “haystack” to find hidden connections to terrorism. Conceding the need for the haystack lends itself to gathering all the hay, whether at Fort Meade or by an intermediary. NSA director General Keith Alexander, Deputy AG James Cole, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Senator Patrick Leahy.National Security Agency Director General Keith Alexander, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Senator Patrick Leahy. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP But that necessity has been called into question. NSA and its allies have lately been given to a different metaphor: not of the haystack, but what NSA deputy director John C Inglis last week called an “insurance policy ”. That contention – a more intellectually honest construction – reflects that the phone data has not, as the NSA initially and forcefully misrepresented, prevented US terror attacks. The greatest counter-terrorist effect the NSA has identified through its mass phone data processing, in 12 years of existence, has been the identification of a financial transfer to a Somali affiliate of al-Qaida from San Diego. All that ought to prompt celebration at Fort Meade. Privacy advocates evidently did not persuade Obama to definitively end what is by far the most domestically controversial of all the surveillance activities disclosed by Edward Snowden. Not only will the NSA (and its allies at the office of the director of national intelligence) spend the next several weeks in part advising Obama on what a post-government, metadata custodian ought to look like, the agency will be a major player in shaping the legislation that will bring such a custodian into existence, owing to its advocates in the Senate and House intelligence committees. Congress’s default position, on a bipartisan basis, is deference to the security agencies. That isn’t to say the NSA has won. It must first withstand the USA Freedom Act , a bipartisan civil libertarian bill to end bulk collection already backed by about a quarter of legislators. If the bill passes, creating a new comprehensive metadata storehouse, or forcing telecoms to retain data for years, will be exceptionally difficult. And the standards of evidence the NSA or the FBI must meet before a judge to gain access to the records will inevitably rise, a critical civil liberties protection. Beyond the domestic metadata collection, the surveillance landscape after Obama’s speech looks remarkably clear for NSA. Obama placed no durable restriction on the mass collection of foreign citizens, merely tasking the attorney general and director of national intelligence to come up with proposals for giving foreigners abroad more privacy safeguards. Foreign leaders did somewhat better than their billions of citizens, with “allies” receiving Obama's assurance that they won’t be spied upon absent a “national security” rationale – significant caveats, and applying already to an infinitesimal fraction of the billions of communications gathered by NSA every day. Consider the following construction by Obama: “In terms of our bulk collection of [overseas] signals intelligence, US intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements: counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, cybersecurity, force protection for our troops and our allies, and combating transnational crime, including sanctions evasion." That’s even broader than it sounds. Those already-expansive policy goals only govern the use of data, not its collection in the first place. And it sets up the tricky problem of how the NSA can determine whether any of that enormous data trove is useful without studying it in the first place. CIA director John Brennan left, talks with the director of national intelligence James Clapper before Barack Obama outlined his NSA reforms.CIA director John Brennan talks with the director of national intelligence James Clapper. Photograph: Jim WatsonAFP/Getty Images Any additional safeguards on other aspects of the NSA’s powers remain subject to a dizzying array of reviews, despite the numerous ones already performed, and which were supposed to inform White House policy. There have been reviews to determine when the NSA can tweak encryption standards; reviews to determine the institutional writ of a privacy advocate before the secret surveillance court that oversees it; reviews to determine the closure of an authority allowing the NSA to search, without a warrant, through its foreign-derived data troves for American identifying information. All these reviews provide the NSA with additional opportunities to make sure it maintains as much flexibility and power as possible. And it has another one coming up. General Keith Alexander and his deputy Inglis are both stepping down. The next director of the NSA will inherit a post-Snowden agency, and has a tremendous opportunity to attempt a public reset. While it’s too soon to tell whether Alexander's successor will seize that opportunity, Washington loves to confuse a new person in charge with an institutional overhaul. If the only thing NSA has lost so far is a PR campaign, the rematch is set to begin this spring. NSA has whined for months that the White House has not ridden to its rescue. That whine turned out to be unfounded. “We cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies” is probably the most durably significant line of Obama’s speech, and the sentence that will have the greatest resonance as a guide to the NSA’s future, especially compared to anything he said about the importance of liberty. The Mozilla Foundation – the internet non-profit that makes, among other things, the Firefox browser – reacted to Obama’s speech in a way that pointed to the path not taken. “Overall, the strategy seems to be to leave current intelligence processes largely intact and improve oversight to a degree,” it said in a statement. “We’d hoped for, and the internet deserves, more. Without a meaningful change of course, the internet will continue on its path toward a world of balkanization and distrust, a grave departure from its origins of openness and opportunity.” Whatever direction that path takes, Obama has reaffirmed the NSA’s largely unfettered ability to exploit it. The reality is that the limits of technology – not policy, which can be manipulated, and not law, which can be finessed – are the NSA’s most important restrictions. -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Jan 18 12:09:50 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 07:09:50 -1000 Subject: [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: [discuss] Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) In-Reply-To: <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:06 PM, parminder wrote: > ... > You cannot in this manner post facto technical-ize an essentially political issue... And if indeed everything is so simple why did not the reps of the 4 groups in the CS CC just not allow the Community Informatics Network (CIN) rep also be a part of the selection panel? Do you think that it is a fake group... > > Denying political space and role to different groups, and the corresponding claims of those so denied, are both highly political acts... And they are best treated as such... It is not quite right that those who participate actively in such political acts, and obtain political roles (quite a legitimate thing to do), then hold forth on how people should not aspire for such spaces/positions... No personal offence implied, but lets not side step serious issues. Some claims may be weightier than others, and that is fine. Some kind of sorting out would need to be done as part of a political process. One can discuss that. It is entirely possible that Diplo Foundation and its alumuni brings better and more effective (both criteria being important) representation of what is normally considered civil society interests than the Community Informatics Network (CIN) does. It is also entirely possible that NCUC deals with issues more salient to general people (civil society) than does CIN. All of this is quite possible. But such should be the bases, or not, for some group being in there and other not being there. All this is entirely political, as IG is political. Those who dont think it is political, can as well step out of the space and let those who consider it is political represent them... > > The primary purpose of my comment is just to speak out against technicalizing issues of representation. Can you say with confidence that you and other members of the concerned committee or whatever will, say, push the perspectives in the CI's Internet declaration as you would the position i have heard you articulate. Or others in these committees will do so vis a vis the positions I have seen them so strongly advocate, and also strategize so actively around. Lets be real. We need diversity in the people who represent and not just the views that they claim they will pick up and push with equal force.. > > Also, is it not interesting that reps of four CS groups who are a part of the selection process selected 5 persons for the 1Net committee, all of which belong to the management structures of these four CS groups.. Indeed, quite a diversity seeking exercise! Could they not find one person from outside, from the whole universe of civil society! Is this not a high degree of insularity. And now these homilies, on being good and nice people... > > Before advice pours in to take such issues off this list, I must add that civil society is always about a bit of a chaos.... Les our friends from outside civil society learn the culture. Parminder - You do not hear me recommending that such issues be taken of the 1net list; to the contrary, I believe that the discussion of representative vs open multistakeholder models is a fundamental and important topic for discussion regarding Internet governance. However, I will also note that this list has quite a few technical folks on it, and they tend to be of analytic mindset which deconstructs, examines, hypothesizes, and test that which is proposed. In this case, the question that has been raised is "validity" of a given set of representatives per the "Representative MultiStakeholder model" Until someone can explain what makes for valid representation, it is not possible to assess the validity of any set of representatives. It is clear that any given set of representatives are going to be a subset of the possible representatives, so how does one determine which representatives are to be chosen to construct the best "representative" stakeholder group? If the "Representative MS model" is truly is a valid model (and not just a catchphrase), then should it not be possible for different folks to follow the representative MS model to choose 3, 5, or 10 representatives from a given list of names and come up with similar choices for optimum representation in each case? This is not to "technical-ize an essentially political issue"; it is simply the application of the known rational/scientific method to the problem space. The alternative is to assert that a rational method is inapplicable to representative multistakeholder selection; if that's the case, so be it, but recognize then that your laments about any given selection may fall on deaf ears (as you have given us no yardstick by which to measure validity.) Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Hopefully, they will be seen by the value (or lack thereof ;-) that they represent to the discussion, rather than the result of my "representing" (or not) others... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jan 18 12:56:31 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:56:31 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: [discuss] Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) In-Reply-To: <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> Message-ID: <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> Ah... John, If, as you say “this list has quite a few technical folks on it, and they tend to be of analytic mindset which deconstructs, examines, hypothesizes, and test that which is proposed”, then presumably they know better than anyone and particularly us non-technical artsy fartsy folks that science/knowledge proceeds not by attempting to prove positives i.e. as for example the “validity” of this or that, but rather by demonstrating the “invalidity” (falsifiability*) of this or that… So in this instance the burden of proof surely falls not on those who are demonstrating that the “multistakeholder model” doesn’t provide an appropriate approach to governance but rather on those who are attempting to assert that it does… If the manner in which the manifestly illegitimate “multistakeholder” selection processes have been conducted in this instance by 1net do not qualify as a “black swan**” (i.e. as a direct falsification of the validity of the approach by which various folks are attempting to bury democracy) then I have no idea what might… M *q.v. Karl Popper and “Falsifiability” as the basis of scientific knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ** Black swans: “For example, by the problem of induction , no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization , such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.” ( ^ Popper, K. R. (1994). "Zwei Bedeutungen von Falsifizierbarkeit [Two meanings of falsifiability]". In Seiffert, H.; Radnitzky, G. Handlexikon der Wissenschaftstheorie. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. pp. 82–85. ISBN 3-423-04586-8 ) as quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:10 AM To: parminder Cc: 1Net List; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: [discuss] Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) On Jan 17, 2014, at 6:06 PM, parminder wrote: ... You cannot in this manner post facto technical-ize an essentially political issue... And if indeed everything is so simple why did not the reps of the 4 groups in the CS CC just not allow the Community Informatics Network (CIN) rep also be a part of the selection panel? Do you think that it is a fake group... Denying political space and role to different groups, and the corresponding claims of those so denied, are both highly political acts... And they are best treated as such... It is not quite right that those who participate actively in such political acts, and obtain political roles (quite a legitimate thing to do), then hold forth on how people should not aspire for such spaces/positions... No personal offence implied, but lets not side step serious issues. Some claims may be weightier than others, and that is fine. Some kind of sorting out would need to be done as part of a political process. One can discuss that. It is entirely possible that Diplo Foundation and its alumuni brings better and more effective (both criteria being important) representation of what is normally considered civil society interests than the Community Informatics Network (CIN) does. It is also entirely possible that NCUC deals with issues more salient to general people (civil society) than does CIN. All of this is quite possible. But such should be the bases, or not, for some group being in there and other not being there. All this is entirely political, as IG is political. Those who dont think it is political, can as well step out of the space and let those who consider it is political represent them... The primary purpose of my comment is just to speak out against technicalizing issues of representation. Can you say with confidence that you and other members of the concerned committee or whatever will, say, push the perspectives in the CI's Internet declaration as you would the position i have heard you articulate. Or others in these committees will do so vis a vis the positions I have seen them so strongly advocate, and also strategize so actively around. Lets be real. We need diversity in the people who represent and not just the views that they claim they will pick up and push with equal force.. Also, is it not interesting that reps of four CS groups who are a part of the selection process selected 5 persons for the 1Net committee, all of which belong to the management structures of these four CS groups.. Indeed, quite a diversity seeking exercise! Could they not find one person from outside, from the whole universe of civil society! Is this not a high degree of insularity. And now these homilies, on being good and nice people... Before advice pours in to take such issues off this list, I must add that civil society is always about a bit of a chaos.... Les our friends from outside civil society learn the culture. Parminder - You do not hear me recommending that such issues be taken of the 1net list; to the contrary, I believe that the discussion of representative vs open multistakeholder models is a fundamental and important topic for discussion regarding Internet governance. However, I will also note that this list has quite a few technical folks on it, and they tend to be of analytic mindset which deconstructs, examines, hypothesizes, and test that which is proposed. In this case, the question that has been raised is "validity" of a given set of representatives per the "Representative MultiStakeholder model" Until someone can explain what makes for valid representation, it is not possible to assess the validity of any set of representatives. It is clear that any given set of representatives are going to be a subset of the possible representatives, so how does one determine which representatives are to be chosen to construct the best "representative" stakeholder group? If the "Representative MS model" is truly is a valid model (and not just a catchphrase), then should it not be possible for different folks to follow the representative MS model to choose 3, 5, or 10 representatives from a given list of names and come up with similar choices for optimum representation in each case? This is not to "technical-ize an essentially political issue"; it is simply the application of the known rational/scientific method to the problem space. The alternative is to assert that a rational method is inapplicable to representative multistakeholder selection; if that's the case, so be it, but recognize then that your laments about any given selection may fall on deaf ears (as you have given us no yardstick by which to measure validity.) Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Hopefully, they will be seen by the value (or lack thereof ;-) that they represent to the discussion, rather than the result of my "representing" (or not) others... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Jan 18 14:52:49 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 09:52:49 -1000 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) In-Reply-To: <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 18, 2014, at 7:56 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > So in this instance the burden of proof surely falls not on those who are demonstrating that the “multistakeholder model” doesn’t provide an appropriate approach to governance but rather on those who are attempting to assert that it does… Actually, we're in agreement on that - i.e. the burden of proof should fall to those who are attempting to assert the validity of the model. You're asserting that there could be a valid representative multistakeholder selection process, but it somehow didn't happen in this case. I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to ponder and revise their understanding based on the information exchanged. I fail to understand how an _representative_ multistakeholder approach fairly provides for the "represented" to have their positions considered in a manner that allows for all participating to revise their views based on the discussion that occurs, and if this does not occur than one may argue that there isn't actual deliberative consideration going but simply a dance of posturing and negotiation. If there is actually a some demonstrable validity to the _representative_ multistakeholder model, it would best to understand how it is supposed to function in ideal circumstances and then assess whether this particular instance of selection functioned in a compatible manner. You're asserting that this selection process lacks validity, but fail to provide any clear model of how a representative multistakeholder approach is supposed to work. I'm presuming that the burden of "being represented" must lie with each party; i.e. regardless of the number or particular folks chosen, it is incumbent upon everyone to seek out representatives and educate them on your views and positions. Logically, it cannot be otherwise, or each & every party could simply disagree with representation and demand to be their own representative. If it is supposed to work in some other manner involving objective criteria for how representation is chosen, then I know I'd like to understand those criteria before trying to pass judgement on "validity" of any representative multistakeholder selection process. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jan 18 16:01:46 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 22:01:46 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Representative Multistakeholder model validity (was: Re: Selection RE: 1Net, Brazil and other RE: BR meeting site launched) In-Reply-To: References: <02fc01cf1222$9cf120b0$d6d36210$@diplomacy.edu> <007901cf124b$493549f0$db9fddd0$@gmail.com> <019d01cf138c$6df389e0$49da9da0$@diplomacy.edu> <52D9FDE1.3090305@itforchange.net> <78103023-2900-41BC-9CAE-5805E2EA3BBA@istaff.org> <031601cf1476$9f4ddb90$dde992b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140118220146.55b82625@quill> John Curran wrote: > I understand how an _open_ multistakeholder approach allows for > everyone (who wishes) to present their views on a given topic, have > those views considered based on their merits, and allow all to ponder > and revise their understanding based on the information exchanged. > > I fail to understand how an _representative_ multistakeholder > approach fairly provides for the "represented" to have their > positions considered in a manner that allows for all participating to > revise their views based on the discussion that occurs, and if this > does not occur than one may argue that there isn't actual > deliberative consideration going but simply a dance of posturing and > negotiation. In my view, representative multistakeholder approaches are not about creating a broad discourse, but about populating, in a reasonably fair and balanced manner, committees and the like which for practical reasons have only a quite limited number of seats. I posit that a reasonable way to implement a process for selecting representatives is for each stakeholder category to organize a randomly selected NomCom process, with each NomCom being tasked to seek to choose a set of representatives who jointly represent the breadth of perspectives of that stakeholder category as well as is possible under the circumstances. Individuals who are close to one of the unavoidably fuzzy boundaries between stakeholder categories would get to choose which one of the stakeholder category that are on offer in that particular context fits them best. I don't claim that this kind of approach would yield perfect representation, but at least the imperfections would be random rather than systematic, and any bias in the pool of people who tend to volunteer for serving on NomComs can be addressed by the very democratic process that anyone who is concerned about such bias is free to seek to convince other qualified people (who don't have that bias) to volunteer for future NomCom pools. Greetings, Norbert From r.bessems at TheHagueInstitute.org Fri Jan 17 10:48:26 2014 From: r.bessems at TheHagueInstitute.org (R. Bessems (The Hague Institute for Global Justice)) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:48:26 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] The Hague Institute for Global Justice - Call for experts on Cyber Governance Message-ID: <502265FBFBC7DB469A6F6AADAD0AED9AA702F3@IGJEX1.thigj.local> [http://thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/images/logo_IGJ.gif] Dear Sir/Madam, I am a researcher at The Hague Institute for Global Justice, based in the Netherlands. I am writing to you in order to introduce a new project launched by The Hague Institute. The Global Governance Reform Initiative (GGRI) is the flagship project of The Hague Institute's Global Governance Program. Its primary goal is to analyze the deficiencies of the current international system and propose policies for improving global governance in select domains. The present focus of this project is on the global governance of cyberspace. The aim of this project is twofold: * To provide actionable policy recommendations for overcoming collective-action dilemmas that stymie governance efforts in the domain of cyberspace * To identify general lessons for good global governance The project will achieve these aims by bringing together around 16 academics and professionals from four sectors (government, international organizations, civil society and the private sector) and a range of countries (including, but not limited to the BRICS, EU and North America) to participate in a policy-oriented dialogue and collaborative research. We are currently soliciting applications from academics and professionals who wish to participate in this project. Preference will be given to candidates who have at least three years of experience working on issues related to the governance of cyberspace. I would be most grateful to you if you would circulate this call to any individuals you think may be interested. A detailed version of the call, including the application form, can be found on our website. Thanks very much for your consideration and please let me know if I can be of any further help. Kind regards, Raoul Bessems -- Raoul M.L.T. Bessems LL.M. Global Governance Program The Hague Institute for Global Justice Sophialaan 10 2514 JR The Hague The Netherlands E: r.bessems at thehagueinstitute.org T: +31 (0)70 30 28 902 T: +31 (0)6 21 54 51 60 (Cell) The Hague Institute for Global Justice is an independent, nonpartisan organization established to undertake interdisciplinary policy-relevant research, training, and facilitation activities on issues at the intersection of peace, security and justice. For more information, visit: TheHagueInstitute.org | Twitter | Newsletter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3210 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 19 04:37:42 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 17:37:42 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Draft submission on 2014 IGF Message-ID: <253EF226-EB50-4A33-B666-13A283154403@ciroap.org> I am offering this as the basis for a proposed joint submission to the IGF on proposals for the 2014 meeting. I will put it up on a pad for amendments, but I'm mailing it around for initial comments first. Whilst the preamble is new, for the recommendations I've tried to draw on and summarise the main points of previous papers or submissions taking stock of the IGF including "Notes on an IGF Plus" that was contributed to our Bali meeting. It goes beyond fiddling with the themes, to suggest some of the more significant changes that the IGF will need to become more useful. We do not need to achieve a full consensus on this, but as many of you as possible should be able to support it. The IGF has always struck a balance between continuity and incremental improvement in its themes and format. But overall, over nine years since the first meeting in 2006, whilst the names of themes and sessions formats have changed, there has been relatively little change in their substance. The IGF is still a discontinuous, face-to-face, four day meeting, composed of overlapping main sessions and workshops. For those who do not admit of gaps in current Internet governance arrangements or do not desire for those gaps to be filled by a natively multi-stakeholder institution, the IGF's resistance to change is neither a problem, nor a coincidence. But in the wake of revelations of major systemic flaws in present arrangements that have enabled systematic human rights abuses of Internet users, the recognition of governance gaps has become more widespread and inspired more urgency for significant reform. This has fuelled discussions outside of the IGF, such as the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, yet in those discussions, the possibility of a reformed IGF taking a more significant role in future Internet governance arrangements continues to come up. The IGF is challenged to respond to this call for more substantial reform to its processes, and there is no better time to do this than in preparation for its ninth meeting in Istanbul in September 2014, following on from the Brazil meeting, and heading towards its second review by the UN General Assembly. With an entirely new IGF MAG also in place for 2014, the opportunity exists for a fresh start, in which a number of unchallenged assumptions about how the IGF should operate can be critically examined again, and new ideas tried out. Yet none of the suggestions for reform given here are actually new. Several of them have been made every year since the IGF's formation in 2006, or earlier, but have never been adopted before now. The following are actionable immediately, without any need for change to the IGF's mandate: Themes The main theme of the 2014 IGF should be to discuss, and if appropriate affirm and commit to implementing the recommendations from the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. In general, the IGF should address policy questions that are controversial and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other multi-stakeholder mechanism for global coordination. It should avoid themes that are too broadly framed like "openness" and "security" that are not grounded in any specific real-life context. Themes and outputs should be explicitly shared between the global IGF and the regional and national IGFs, so that they can feed into and reinforce each other, without this detracting from the ability of the latter to also deal with more specialised regional and national issues. Session formats To make the IGF more practically useful, designated workshops should be dedicated to developing non-binding opinions, recommending policy principles that stakeholders can follow to address pressing current issues. Workshop report formats should be standardised so that these recommendations, how they were arrived at, and any areas of divergence, can be easily communicated. There should be a reduction in the number of parallel workshops, to a more manageable number of purposeful workshops with more focus on the main themes selected for the meeting. Main sessions can and should also be used to develop outputs on the most important issues of cross-cutting importance. A number of Best Bits participants described one simple way in which such a session could work, in a statement issued on 20 May 2013 that is available at http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. Speed dialogues were another method considered by the MAG in the past, but never tried. To that end, main sessions and workshops should be separated. When these overlap each other, it becomes impossible for all interested IGF participants to join together to address important shared issues in an outcome-oriented, deliberative plenary session. Online deliberation The IGF should address its incapacity to sustain a work programme between meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern. Such a reform would add much value for online participants, essentially providing an online and intersessional equivalent of the annual IGF meeting. Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in the IGF, because they are not granted the same status as those who attend the face-to-face meetings. Data from the IGF (including calendar data, publicly-available participant data, meeting transcripts, and working documents) should all be made available in open data formats. It is vital that the development of the IGF's online platform be adequately resourced. Even so, it would only incur a small fraction of the expense of the annual meeting, and need not be elaborate: for example, in other Internet governance institutions, participants are encouraged to join mailing lists, whereas most IGF participants are never offered that opportunity. Whilst individual stakeholders have attempted to provide community-based platforms for the IGF in the past, these have not been supported or publicised by the Secretariat. Management structure The Secretariat and the MAG conceived as a programme committee, are not sufficient high level structures for the IGF. In particular the reappointment of a Special Advisor as Chair is important to provide a charismatic public face for the IGF as well as a formal interface with the United Nations system and other high-level stakeholder representatives. A Special Advisor will also make it easier to attract funding for the event, and to provide leadership as the IGF undergoes necessary changes. The Tunis Agenda called for the IGF to have a bureau, which was never formed for fear that this connoted an intergovernmental governing structure. Whilst the name is not important, there is no warrant for the MAG to be limited to the role of a programme committee, as it is now. It is also important for a multi-stakeholder committee of the IGF to perform substantive tasks such as: liaising with external bodies including national and regional IGFs (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(c)); defining orphan issues and other areas in need of research or deliberation; preparing or approving balanced briefing materials on issues to be addressed by the IGF; assessing the extent of consensus reached on proposed IGF outputs presented at a main session; reviewing and ensure the accountability of all fora involved in Internet governance (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(i)); establishing ad hoc working groups; and preparing an annual report. For some of these tasks, it may be that smaller working groups of the larger MAG could perform them more efficiently than the full MAG. For others, the more organisational tasks should be offloaded to the Secretariat, allowing the MAG to perform more of a steering and oversight role. The MAG representatives should be appointed directly by the stakeholder groups without the intermediation of the UN Secretary General. Whilst the involvement of the UN was important to bootstrap the fledgling IGF, it can now stand on its own two feet and appoint its own representatives, through processes devolved to the stakeholder groups themselves. Funding A more flexible mechanism for funding the IGF is needed. The terms and conditions on which UN DESA accepts contributions to the IGF are unfavourable to donors, they lack transparency, and also limit the ability of participants to contribute small sums. There is no reason why a pool of funding separate to that administered by UN DESA could not be set up and administered transparently by a multi-stakeholder working group under the MAG's oversight. Host country agreements should be made public, and host countries should be permitted to open tenders for non-security-essential services publicly, rather than being required to take these from UN DESA. The deadline is 10 February 2014. Please send your initial comments and then I'll put this up on a pad. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Jan 19 09:40:49 2014 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:10:49 +0430 Subject: [bestbits] Draft submission on 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: <253EF226-EB50-4A33-B666-13A283154403@ciroap.org> References: <253EF226-EB50-4A33-B666-13A283154403@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Thanks for putting together this important submission and taking out the time needed from your busy schedule on behalf of the group. Where I am very comfortable of most of the text, I believe there is an evident need to voice developing country concerns. The notion of human rights varies in different developing contexts and regions and especially in the muslim world where there is a continuous challenge to understand the pluralism online and its contextual impacts on society, socio-religion, socio-culture, economic and political environments. What has been happening in the Middle East and the Youtube and frequent bans of other content in Pakistan are examples of the pluralism and the struggle to come to terms with. As such issues have been covered during BestBits and other workshops occasionally at IGF and regional IGFs, it would be prudent to help bring the IGF focus back to the developing context and reducing the talk-shop and defensive tactics of the develop world lobby groups, interest groups and private sector. Developing world participation is still a challenge and there really haven't been visible efforts beyond remote participation and some fellowship programs to improve the situation. Somehow I am able to draw such a view from the present text. On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am offering this as the basis for a proposed joint submission to the IGF > on proposals for the 2014 meeting. I will put it up on a pad for > amendments, but I'm mailing it around for initial comments first. > > Whilst the preamble is new, for the recommendations I've tried to draw on > and summarise the main points of previous papers or submissions taking stock > of the IGF including "Notes on an IGF Plus" that was contributed to our Bali > meeting. It goes beyond fiddling with the themes, to suggest some of the > more significant changes that the IGF will need to become more useful. We > do not need to achieve a full consensus on this, but as many of you as > possible should be able to support it. > > The IGF has always struck a balance between continuity and incremental > improvement in its themes and format. But overall, over nine years since > the first meeting in 2006, whilst the names of themes and sessions formats > have changed, there has been relatively little change in their substance. > The IGF is still a discontinuous, face-to-face, four day meeting, composed > of overlapping main sessions and workshops. For those who do not admit of > gaps in current Internet governance arrangements or do not desire for those > gaps to be filled by a natively multi-stakeholder institution, the IGF's > resistance to change is neither a problem, nor a coincidence. > > But in the wake of revelations of major systemic flaws in present > arrangements that have enabled systematic human rights abuses of Internet > users, the recognition of governance gaps has become more widespread and > inspired more urgency for significant reform. This has fuelled discussions > outside of the IGF, such as the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > and the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet > Governance, yet in those discussions, the possibility of a reformed IGF > taking a more significant role in future Internet governance arrangements > continues to come up. > > The IGF is challenged to respond to this call for more substantial reform to > its processes, and there is no better time to do this than in preparation > for its ninth meeting in Istanbul in September 2014, following on from the > Brazil meeting, and heading towards its second review by the UN General > Assembly. With an entirely new IGF MAG also in place for 2014, the > opportunity exists for a fresh start, in which a number of unchallenged > assumptions about how the IGF should operate can be critically examined > again, and new ideas tried out. Yet none of the suggestions for reform > given here are actually new. Several of them have been made every year > since the IGF's formation in 2006, or earlier, but have never been adopted > before now. The following are actionable immediately, without any need for > change to the IGF's mandate: > > Themes > > The main theme of the 2014 IGF should be to discuss, and if appropriate > affirm and commit to implementing the recommendations from the Brazil > Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. > In general, the IGF should address policy questions that are controversial > and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other multi-stakeholder > mechanism for global coordination. It should avoid themes that are too > broadly framed like "openness" and "security" that are not grounded in any > specific real-life context. > Themes and outputs should be explicitly shared between the global IGF and > the regional and national IGFs, so that they can feed into and reinforce > each other, without this detracting from the ability of the latter to also > deal with more specialised regional and national issues. > > > Session formats > > To make the IGF more practically useful, designated workshops should be > dedicated to developing non-binding opinions, recommending policy principles > that stakeholders can follow to address pressing current issues. Workshop > report formats should be standardised so that these recommendations, how > they were arrived at, and any areas of divergence, can be easily > communicated. > There should be a reduction in the number of parallel workshops, to a more > manageable number of purposeful workshops with more focus on the main themes > selected for the meeting. > Main sessions can and should also be used to develop outputs on the most > important issues of cross-cutting importance. A number of Best Bits > participants described one simple way in which such a session could work, in > a statement issued on 20 May 2013 that is available at > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. Speed dialogues were another method > considered by the MAG in the past, but never tried. > To that end, main sessions and workshops should be separated. When these > overlap each other, it becomes impossible for all interested IGF > participants to join together to address important shared issues in an > outcome-oriented, deliberative plenary session. > > > Online deliberation > > The IGF should address its incapacity to sustain a work programme between > meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF > participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the > opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with > other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern. > Such a reform would add much value for online participants, essentially > providing an online and intersessional equivalent of the annual IGF meeting. > Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in the IGF, > because they are not granted the same status as those who attend the > face-to-face meetings. > Data from the IGF (including calendar data, publicly-available participant > data, meeting transcripts, and working documents) should all be made > available in open data formats. > It is vital that the development of the IGF's online platform be adequately > resourced. Even so, it would only incur a small fraction of the expense of > the annual meeting, and need not be elaborate: for example, in other > Internet governance institutions, participants are encouraged to join > mailing lists, whereas most IGF participants are never offered that > opportunity. Whilst individual stakeholders have attempted to provide > community-based platforms for the IGF in the past, these have not been > supported or publicised by the Secretariat. > > > Management structure > > The Secretariat and the MAG conceived as a programme committee, are not > sufficient high level structures for the IGF. In particular the > reappointment of a Special Advisor as Chair is important to provide a > charismatic public face for the IGF as well as a formal interface with the > United Nations system and other high-level stakeholder representatives. A > Special Advisor will also make it easier to attract funding for the event, > and to provide leadership as the IGF undergoes necessary changes. > The Tunis Agenda called for the IGF to have a bureau, which was never formed > for fear that this connoted an intergovernmental governing structure. > Whilst the name is not important, there is no warrant for the MAG to be > limited to the role of a programme committee, as it is now. It is also > important for a multi-stakeholder committee of the IGF to perform > substantive tasks such as: > > liaising with external bodies including national and regional IGFs (pursuant > to IGF mandate 72(c)); > defining orphan issues and other areas in need of research or deliberation; > preparing or approving balanced briefing materials on issues to be addressed > by the IGF; > assessing the extent of consensus reached on proposed IGF outputs presented > at a main session; > reviewing and ensure the accountability of all fora involved in Internet > governance (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(i)); > establishing ad hoc working groups; and > preparing an annual report. > > For some of these tasks, it may be that smaller working groups of the larger > MAG could perform them more efficiently than the full MAG. For others, the > more organisational tasks should be offloaded to the Secretariat, allowing > the MAG to perform more of a steering and oversight role. > The MAG representatives should be appointed directly by the stakeholder > groups without the intermediation of the UN Secretary General. Whilst the > involvement of the UN was important to bootstrap the fledgling IGF, it can > now stand on its own two feet and appoint its own representatives, through > processes devolved to the stakeholder groups themselves. > > > Funding > > A more flexible mechanism for funding the IGF is needed. The terms and > conditions on which UN DESA accepts contributions to the IGF are > unfavourable to donors, they lack transparency, and also limit the ability > of participants to contribute small sums. There is no reason why a pool of > funding separate to that administered by UN DESA could not be set up and > administered transparently by a multi-stakeholder working group under the > MAG's oversight. > Host country agreements should be made public, and host countries should be > permitted to open tenders for non-security-essential services publicly, > rather than being required to take these from UN DESA. > > > The deadline is 10 February 2014. Please send your initial comments and > then I'll put this up on a pad. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to > enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Jan 19 21:23:27 2014 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:23:27 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Draft submission on 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: References: <253EF226-EB50-4A33-B666-13A283154403@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 to refocus at least one part of the IGF on issues of concern to developing countries /t On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Jeremy, > > Thanks for putting together this important submission and taking out > the time needed from your busy schedule on behalf of the group. > > Where I am very comfortable of most of the text, I believe there is an > evident need to voice developing country concerns. The notion of human > rights varies in different developing contexts and regions and > especially in the muslim world where there is a continuous challenge > to understand the pluralism online and its contextual impacts on > society, socio-religion, socio-culture, economic and political > environments. > > What has been happening in the Middle East and the Youtube and > frequent bans of other content in Pakistan are examples of the > pluralism and the struggle to come to terms with. As such issues have > been covered during BestBits and other workshops occasionally at IGF > and regional IGFs, it would be prudent to help bring the IGF focus > back to the developing context and reducing the talk-shop and > defensive tactics of the develop world lobby groups, interest groups > and private sector. Developing world participation is still a > challenge and there really haven't been visible efforts beyond remote > participation and some fellowship programs to improve the situation. > Somehow I am able to draw such a view from the present text. > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I am offering this as the basis for a proposed joint submission to the > IGF > > on proposals for the 2014 meeting. I will put it up on a pad for > > amendments, but I'm mailing it around for initial comments first. > > > > Whilst the preamble is new, for the recommendations I've tried to draw on > > and summarise the main points of previous papers or submissions taking > stock > > of the IGF including "Notes on an IGF Plus" that was contributed to our > Bali > > meeting. It goes beyond fiddling with the themes, to suggest some of the > > more significant changes that the IGF will need to become more useful. > We > > do not need to achieve a full consensus on this, but as many of you as > > possible should be able to support it. > > > > The IGF has always struck a balance between continuity and incremental > > improvement in its themes and format. But overall, over nine years since > > the first meeting in 2006, whilst the names of themes and sessions > formats > > have changed, there has been relatively little change in their substance. > > The IGF is still a discontinuous, face-to-face, four day meeting, > composed > > of overlapping main sessions and workshops. For those who do not admit > of > > gaps in current Internet governance arrangements or do not desire for > those > > gaps to be filled by a natively multi-stakeholder institution, the IGF's > > resistance to change is neither a problem, nor a coincidence. > > > > But in the wake of revelations of major systemic flaws in present > > arrangements that have enabled systematic human rights abuses of Internet > > users, the recognition of governance gaps has become more widespread and > > inspired more urgency for significant reform. This has fuelled > discussions > > outside of the IGF, such as the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced > Cooperation > > and the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet > > Governance, yet in those discussions, the possibility of a reformed IGF > > taking a more significant role in future Internet governance arrangements > > continues to come up. > > > > The IGF is challenged to respond to this call for more substantial > reform to > > its processes, and there is no better time to do this than in preparation > > for its ninth meeting in Istanbul in September 2014, following on from > the > > Brazil meeting, and heading towards its second review by the UN General > > Assembly. With an entirely new IGF MAG also in place for 2014, the > > opportunity exists for a fresh start, in which a number of unchallenged > > assumptions about how the IGF should operate can be critically examined > > again, and new ideas tried out. Yet none of the suggestions for reform > > given here are actually new. Several of them have been made every year > > since the IGF's formation in 2006, or earlier, but have never been > adopted > > before now. The following are actionable immediately, without any need > for > > change to the IGF's mandate: > > > > Themes > > > > The main theme of the 2014 IGF should be to discuss, and if appropriate > > affirm and commit to implementing the recommendations from the Brazil > > Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. > > In general, the IGF should address policy questions that are > controversial > > and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other multi-stakeholder > > mechanism for global coordination. It should avoid themes that are too > > broadly framed like "openness" and "security" that are not grounded in > any > > specific real-life context. > > Themes and outputs should be explicitly shared between the global IGF and > > the regional and national IGFs, so that they can feed into and reinforce > > each other, without this detracting from the ability of the latter to > also > > deal with more specialised regional and national issues. > > > > > > Session formats > > > > To make the IGF more practically useful, designated workshops should be > > dedicated to developing non-binding opinions, recommending policy > principles > > that stakeholders can follow to address pressing current issues. > Workshop > > report formats should be standardised so that these recommendations, how > > they were arrived at, and any areas of divergence, can be easily > > communicated. > > There should be a reduction in the number of parallel workshops, to a > more > > manageable number of purposeful workshops with more focus on the main > themes > > selected for the meeting. > > Main sessions can and should also be used to develop outputs on the most > > important issues of cross-cutting importance. A number of Best Bits > > participants described one simple way in which such a session could > work, in > > a statement issued on 20 May 2013 that is available at > > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. Speed dialogues were another method > > considered by the MAG in the past, but never tried. > > To that end, main sessions and workshops should be separated. When these > > overlap each other, it becomes impossible for all interested IGF > > participants to join together to address important shared issues in an > > outcome-oriented, deliberative plenary session. > > > > > > Online deliberation > > > > The IGF should address its incapacity to sustain a work programme between > > meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF > > participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, > the > > opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with > > other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern. > > Such a reform would add much value for online participants, essentially > > providing an online and intersessional equivalent of the annual IGF > meeting. > > Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in the > IGF, > > because they are not granted the same status as those who attend the > > face-to-face meetings. > > Data from the IGF (including calendar data, publicly-available > participant > > data, meeting transcripts, and working documents) should all be made > > available in open data formats. > > It is vital that the development of the IGF's online platform be > adequately > > resourced. Even so, it would only incur a small fraction of the expense > of > > the annual meeting, and need not be elaborate: for example, in other > > Internet governance institutions, participants are encouraged to join > > mailing lists, whereas most IGF participants are never offered that > > opportunity. Whilst individual stakeholders have attempted to provide > > community-based platforms for the IGF in the past, these have not been > > supported or publicised by the Secretariat. > > > > > > Management structure > > > > The Secretariat and the MAG conceived as a programme committee, are not > > sufficient high level structures for the IGF. In particular the > > reappointment of a Special Advisor as Chair is important to provide a > > charismatic public face for the IGF as well as a formal interface with > the > > United Nations system and other high-level stakeholder representatives. > A > > Special Advisor will also make it easier to attract funding for the > event, > > and to provide leadership as the IGF undergoes necessary changes. > > The Tunis Agenda called for the IGF to have a bureau, which was never > formed > > for fear that this connoted an intergovernmental governing structure. > > Whilst the name is not important, there is no warrant for the MAG to be > > limited to the role of a programme committee, as it is now. It is also > > important for a multi-stakeholder committee of the IGF to perform > > substantive tasks such as: > > > > liaising with external bodies including national and regional IGFs > (pursuant > > to IGF mandate 72(c)); > > defining orphan issues and other areas in need of research or > deliberation; > > preparing or approving balanced briefing materials on issues to be > addressed > > by the IGF; > > assessing the extent of consensus reached on proposed IGF outputs > presented > > at a main session; > > reviewing and ensure the accountability of all fora involved in Internet > > governance (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(i)); > > establishing ad hoc working groups; and > > preparing an annual report. > > > > For some of these tasks, it may be that smaller working groups of the > larger > > MAG could perform them more efficiently than the full MAG. For others, > the > > more organisational tasks should be offloaded to the Secretariat, > allowing > > the MAG to perform more of a steering and oversight role. > > The MAG representatives should be appointed directly by the stakeholder > > groups without the intermediation of the UN Secretary General. Whilst > the > > involvement of the UN was important to bootstrap the fledgling IGF, it > can > > now stand on its own two feet and appoint its own representatives, > through > > processes devolved to the stakeholder groups themselves. > > > > > > Funding > > > > A more flexible mechanism for funding the IGF is needed. The terms and > > conditions on which UN DESA accepts contributions to the IGF are > > unfavourable to donors, they lack transparency, and also limit the > ability > > of participants to contribute small sums. There is no reason why a pool > of > > funding separate to that administered by UN DESA could not be set up and > > administered transparently by a multi-stakeholder working group under the > > MAG's oversight. > > Host country agreements should be made public, and host countries should > be > > permitted to open tenders for non-security-essential services publicly, > > rather than being required to take these from UN DESA. > > > > > > The deadline is 10 February 2014. Please send your initial comments and > > then I'll put this up on a pad. > > > > -- > > > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Policy Officer > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > > necessary. > > > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended > to > > enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see > > http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pimienta at funredes.org Tue Jan 7 10:27:48 2014 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:27:48 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52CC0BCC.3080303@itforchange.net> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> <169139709.7007.1389085610684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> <52CBFE4F.3090502@itforchange.net> <52CC0BCC.3080303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > (and Louis Pouzin, if as Daniel indicated, he is being considered) I would like to confirm that Mr. Pouzin did finally accept my nomination for HLC and have sent directly to Ian his candidature file. I do consider that a balanced couple/ticket (Louis, Norbert) for (HLC, ExecCom) could (re)present appropriately the vision of a large and inclusive group of civil society players around Internet Governance issues and an efficient manner to convey that vision, in terms of concrete subjects, into the coming Brasil process. I would like then to motivate around to support both Louis and Norbert. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 19 23:08:20 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:08:20 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Draft submission on 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: References: <253EF226-EB50-4A33-B666-13A283154403@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52DCA134.9020601@ciroap.org> On 20/01/14 10:23, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > +1 to refocus at least one part of the IGF on issues of concern to > developing countries Thanks Fouad and Tracy. It would help if either of you, or anyone else who wishes to, could propose specific text that would help to improve the draft's orientation towards developing country concerns. To enable that, here is a pad version of the draft: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-2014 Please go for it, and we'll summarise the changes back here before finalising the text and opening for endorsements. How about we aim to do this by the end of the month? -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jan 20 02:06:29 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:06:29 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Post-Brazil appointments: future of civil society IG coordination group Message-ID: <52DCCAF5.7000201@ciroap.org> I'm posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the civil society coordination group for comments and input. It relates to some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input. (Ian Peter has also posted this message to the governance list; reply on whichever thread you wish, and we will capture them all.) What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling for how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, and we will look forward to getting wide input. But firstly- is there a need for such a group? There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great needs at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing communication between groups working in the area of internet governance might be useful. The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations until after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion on list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for involvement. One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of interest -- but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions until the co ordination group is fully populated. That's the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, but also for any future CS representation). We present three different options here. OPTION ONE - VOTING This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with multi-organisational elections -- who is in for voting, who is out? And some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for us here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. OPTION TWO -- RANDOM NOMCOM This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter of IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some other examples. While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this "My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so random Nomcoms, with the following results: * 2 included known trolls. * Only one of 9 had all members active -- most worked on the basis of only one or two active members. * One refused to work with the appointed Chair * One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual making decisions * Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance." To this we would add issues involved with random selection when factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case for important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations because they weren't randomly selected. So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important matters of representation best not left to chance. OPTION THREE -- APPOINTED NOMCOM This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can think of. It's the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable and inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake when in place. And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to and sorted out. 3. CRITERIA We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these under consideration 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance issues Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. Over to everyone for comments. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jan 20 02:55:32 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:55:32 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Draft submission on 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: References: <253EF226-EB50-4A33-B666-13A283154403@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20140120085532.6a457e13@quill> Am Sun, 19 Jan 2014 22:23:27 -0400 schrieb "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" : > +1 to refocus at least one part of the IGF on issues of concern to > developing countries +1 and it needs to be done in actual reality... IGF “overall themes” have for a long time been great in terms of lip service to the needs of developing countries and the people living there, but I have consistently been disappointed by how little the actual content of the discussions, and the informal patterns of discourse, have reflected the very real need to find solutions for the important problems that exist in those contexts. That said, I sincerely believe that many of the solutions that are needed to meet the needs of developing countries, and marginalized communities elsewhere, will also be highly beneficial to consumer and small business interests in industrialized country/area contexts. IMO it's just because in these contexts, people are rich enough and various infrastructures are good enough in many alternative ways, that the shortcomings of the current status quo don't result in much of a felt need for urgent change. Greetings, Norbert > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > > > Dear Jeremy, > > > > Thanks for putting together this important submission and taking out > > the time needed from your busy schedule on behalf of the group. > > > > Where I am very comfortable of most of the text, I believe there is > > an evident need to voice developing country concerns. The notion of > > human rights varies in different developing contexts and regions and > > especially in the muslim world where there is a continuous challenge > > to understand the pluralism online and its contextual impacts on > > society, socio-religion, socio-culture, economic and political > > environments. > > > > What has been happening in the Middle East and the Youtube and > > frequent bans of other content in Pakistan are examples of the > > pluralism and the struggle to come to terms with. As such issues > > have been covered during BestBits and other workshops occasionally > > at IGF and regional IGFs, it would be prudent to help bring the IGF > > focus back to the developing context and reducing the talk-shop and > > defensive tactics of the develop world lobby groups, interest groups > > and private sector. Developing world participation is still a > > challenge and there really haven't been visible efforts beyond > > remote participation and some fellowship programs to improve the > > situation. Somehow I am able to draw such a view from the present > > text. > > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: > > > I am offering this as the basis for a proposed joint submission > > > to the > > IGF > > > on proposals for the 2014 meeting. I will put it up on a pad for > > > amendments, but I'm mailing it around for initial comments first. > > > > > > Whilst the preamble is new, for the recommendations I've tried to > > > draw on and summarise the main points of previous papers or > > > submissions taking > > stock > > > of the IGF including "Notes on an IGF Plus" that was contributed > > > to our > > Bali > > > meeting. It goes beyond fiddling with the themes, to suggest > > > some of the more significant changes that the IGF will need to > > > become more useful. > > We > > > do not need to achieve a full consensus on this, but as many of > > > you as possible should be able to support it. > > > > > > The IGF has always struck a balance between continuity and > > > incremental improvement in its themes and format. But overall, > > > over nine years since the first meeting in 2006, whilst the names > > > of themes and sessions > > formats > > > have changed, there has been relatively little change in their > > > substance. The IGF is still a discontinuous, face-to-face, four > > > day meeting, > > composed > > > of overlapping main sessions and workshops. For those who do not > > > admit > > of > > > gaps in current Internet governance arrangements or do not desire > > > for > > those > > > gaps to be filled by a natively multi-stakeholder institution, > > > the IGF's resistance to change is neither a problem, nor a > > > coincidence. > > > > > > But in the wake of revelations of major systemic flaws in present > > > arrangements that have enabled systematic human rights abuses of > > > Internet users, the recognition of governance gaps has become > > > more widespread and inspired more urgency for significant > > > reform. This has fuelled > > discussions > > > outside of the IGF, such as the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced > > Cooperation > > > and the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet > > > Governance, yet in those discussions, the possibility of a > > > reformed IGF taking a more significant role in future Internet > > > governance arrangements continues to come up. > > > > > > The IGF is challenged to respond to this call for more substantial > > reform to > > > its processes, and there is no better time to do this than in > > > preparation for its ninth meeting in Istanbul in September 2014, > > > following on from > > the > > > Brazil meeting, and heading towards its second review by the UN > > > General Assembly. With an entirely new IGF MAG also in place for > > > 2014, the opportunity exists for a fresh start, in which a number > > > of unchallenged assumptions about how the IGF should operate can > > > be critically examined again, and new ideas tried out. Yet none > > > of the suggestions for reform given here are actually new. > > > Several of them have been made every year since the IGF's > > > formation in 2006, or earlier, but have never been > > adopted > > > before now. The following are actionable immediately, without > > > any need > > for > > > change to the IGF's mandate: > > > > > > Themes > > > > > > The main theme of the 2014 IGF should be to discuss, and if > > > appropriate affirm and commit to implementing the recommendations > > > from the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of > > > Internet Governance. In general, the IGF should address policy > > > questions that are > > controversial > > > and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other > > > multi-stakeholder mechanism for global coordination. It should > > > avoid themes that are too broadly framed like "openness" and > > > "security" that are not grounded in > > any > > > specific real-life context. > > > Themes and outputs should be explicitly shared between the global > > > IGF and the regional and national IGFs, so that they can feed > > > into and reinforce each other, without this detracting from the > > > ability of the latter to > > also > > > deal with more specialised regional and national issues. > > > > > > > > > Session formats > > > > > > To make the IGF more practically useful, designated workshops > > > should be dedicated to developing non-binding opinions, > > > recommending policy > > principles > > > that stakeholders can follow to address pressing current issues. > > Workshop > > > report formats should be standardised so that these > > > recommendations, how they were arrived at, and any areas of > > > divergence, can be easily communicated. > > > There should be a reduction in the number of parallel workshops, > > > to a > > more > > > manageable number of purposeful workshops with more focus on the > > > main > > themes > > > selected for the meeting. > > > Main sessions can and should also be used to develop outputs on > > > the most important issues of cross-cutting importance. A number > > > of Best Bits participants described one simple way in which such > > > a session could > > work, in > > > a statement issued on 20 May 2013 that is available at > > > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. Speed dialogues were another > > > method considered by the MAG in the past, but never tried. > > > To that end, main sessions and workshops should be separated. > > > When these overlap each other, it becomes impossible for all > > > interested IGF participants to join together to address important > > > shared issues in an outcome-oriented, deliberative plenary > > > session. > > > > > > > > > Online deliberation > > > > > > The IGF should address its incapacity to sustain a work programme > > > between meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by > > > offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or > > > following it remotely, > > the > > > opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for > > > interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues > > > of shared concern. Such a reform would add much value for online > > > participants, essentially providing an online and intersessional > > > equivalent of the annual IGF > > meeting. > > > Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in > > > the > > IGF, > > > because they are not granted the same status as those who attend > > > the face-to-face meetings. > > > Data from the IGF (including calendar data, publicly-available > > participant > > > data, meeting transcripts, and working documents) should all be > > > made available in open data formats. > > > It is vital that the development of the IGF's online platform be > > adequately > > > resourced. Even so, it would only incur a small fraction of the > > > expense > > of > > > the annual meeting, and need not be elaborate: for example, in > > > other Internet governance institutions, participants are > > > encouraged to join mailing lists, whereas most IGF participants > > > are never offered that opportunity. Whilst individual > > > stakeholders have attempted to provide community-based platforms > > > for the IGF in the past, these have not been supported or > > > publicised by the Secretariat. > > > > > > > > > Management structure > > > > > > The Secretariat and the MAG conceived as a programme committee, > > > are not sufficient high level structures for the IGF. In > > > particular the reappointment of a Special Advisor as Chair is > > > important to provide a charismatic public face for the IGF as > > > well as a formal interface with > > the > > > United Nations system and other high-level stakeholder > > > representatives. > > A > > > Special Advisor will also make it easier to attract funding for > > > the > > event, > > > and to provide leadership as the IGF undergoes necessary changes. > > > The Tunis Agenda called for the IGF to have a bureau, which was > > > never > > formed > > > for fear that this connoted an intergovernmental governing > > > structure. Whilst the name is not important, there is no warrant > > > for the MAG to be limited to the role of a programme committee, > > > as it is now. It is also important for a multi-stakeholder > > > committee of the IGF to perform substantive tasks such as: > > > > > > liaising with external bodies including national and regional IGFs > > (pursuant > > > to IGF mandate 72(c)); > > > defining orphan issues and other areas in need of research or > > deliberation; > > > preparing or approving balanced briefing materials on issues to be > > addressed > > > by the IGF; > > > assessing the extent of consensus reached on proposed IGF outputs > > presented > > > at a main session; > > > reviewing and ensure the accountability of all fora involved in > > > Internet governance (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(i)); > > > establishing ad hoc working groups; and > > > preparing an annual report. > > > > > > For some of these tasks, it may be that smaller working groups of > > > the > > larger > > > MAG could perform them more efficiently than the full MAG. For > > > others, > > the > > > more organisational tasks should be offloaded to the Secretariat, > > allowing > > > the MAG to perform more of a steering and oversight role. > > > The MAG representatives should be appointed directly by the > > > stakeholder groups without the intermediation of the UN Secretary > > > General. Whilst > > the > > > involvement of the UN was important to bootstrap the fledgling > > > IGF, it > > can > > > now stand on its own two feet and appoint its own representatives, > > through > > > processes devolved to the stakeholder groups themselves. > > > > > > > > > Funding > > > > > > A more flexible mechanism for funding the IGF is needed. The > > > terms and conditions on which UN DESA accepts contributions to > > > the IGF are unfavourable to donors, they lack transparency, and > > > also limit the > > ability > > > of participants to contribute small sums. There is no reason why > > > a pool > > of > > > funding separate to that administered by UN DESA could not be set > > > up and administered transparently by a multi-stakeholder working > > > group under the MAG's oversight. > > > Host country agreements should be made public, and host countries > > > should > > be > > > permitted to open tenders for non-security-essential services > > > publicly, rather than being required to take these from UN DESA. > > > > > > > > > The deadline is 10 February 2014. Please send your initial > > > comments and then I'll put this up on a pad. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > > Senior Policy Officer > > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for > > > consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > > > Lumpur, Malaysia > > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > > > WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | > > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > > > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email > > > unless necessary. > > > > > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > > > recommended > > to > > > enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see > > > http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards. > > -------------------------- > > Fouad Bajwa > > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > > My Blog: Internet's Governance: > > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: > > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as 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 Jan 20 04:35:15 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:35:15 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> Message-ID: How about a "network nomcom"? Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of improvement of what we have now. What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. Here is my suggestion: 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s for the task at hand. What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called for 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies the Chair or their rep on the NomCom Best Nnenna On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to represent > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, this > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on other > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] > > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that have > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input. >> >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling for >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, and >> we will look forward to getting wide input. >> >> >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >> >> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great needs >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance >> might be useful. >> >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. >> >> >> >> >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >> >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations until >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion on >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for >> involvement. >> >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of interest – >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions until >> the co ordination group is fully populated. >> >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... >> >> >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, >> but also for any future CS representation). >> >> We present three different options here. >> >> OPTION ONE - VOTING >> >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for us >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) >> >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >> >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >> >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter of >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some >> other examples. >> >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. >> >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >> >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >> >> 2 included known trolls. >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only >> one or two active members. >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual >> making decisions >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >> >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case for >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations >> because they weren’t randomly selected. >> >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important >> matters of representation best not left to chance. >> >> >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >> >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable and >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake >> when in place. >> >> >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to >> and sorted out. >> >> CRITERIA >> >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these >> under consideration >> >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >> covered? >> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >> business)? >> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, >> business or government in its categorization? >> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >> the existing members? >> >> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >> accountable to its members. >> >> >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and >> knowledge of internet governance issues >> >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. >> >> >> >> Over to everyone for comments. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jan 21 16:33:43 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:33:43 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> Message-ID: <9F71CCA554EF418E8097E3C8F6E76577@Toshiba> Thanks everyone for comments. So far we have had some discussion on Nomcom alternatives which has put up some interesting thoughts. On other subjects - Any thoughts on expansion and criteria - particularly whether or not to have individuals as well as representatives of organisations on co ordination group? -----Original Message----- From: Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments How about a "network nomcom"? Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of improvement of what we have now. What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. Here is my suggestion: 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s for the task at hand. What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called for 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies the Chair or their rep on the NomCom Best Nnenna On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to represent > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, > this > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on > other > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] > > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that > have > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input. >> >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling >> for >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, >> and >> we will look forward to getting wide input. >> >> >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >> >> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great >> needs >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance >> might be useful. >> >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. >> >> >> >> >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >> >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations >> until >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion >> on >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for >> involvement. >> >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of >> interest – >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions >> until >> the co ordination group is fully populated. >> >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... >> >> >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, >> but also for any future CS representation). >> >> We present three different options here. >> >> OPTION ONE - VOTING >> >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for >> us >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) >> >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >> >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >> >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter >> of >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some >> other examples. >> >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. >> >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >> >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >> >> 2 included known trolls. >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only >> one or two active members. >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual >> making decisions >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >> >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case >> for >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations >> because they weren’t randomly selected. >> >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important >> matters of representation best not left to chance. >> >> >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >> >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable >> and >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake >> when in place. >> >> >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to >> and sorted out. >> >> CRITERIA >> >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these >> under consideration >> >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >> covered? >> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >> business)? >> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, >> business or government in its categorization? >> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >> the existing members? >> >> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >> accountable to its members. >> >> >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and >> knowledge of internet governance issues >> >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. >> >> >> >> Over to everyone for comments. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Jan 21 16:50:38 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:50:38 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> Message-ID: <52DEEBAE.1010400@wzb.eu> Hi Nenna, I like your proposal except for point 4. I think it is important to create a stable nomcom with each member committing to the job for a given length of time. Convening new nomcoms each time they are needed makes the process unnecessarily complex. Regarding Ian's question on individual membership, I would feel well represented by the existing networks and coalitions but perhaps one or two seats could be reserved for individuals to represent those who feel otherwise? jeanette Am 20.01.14 10:35, schrieb Nnenna Nwakanma: > How about a "network nomcom"? > > Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of > improvement of what we have now. > > What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of > different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. > > Here is my suggestion: > > 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions > with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) > 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. > 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, > a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom > 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed > 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their > networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide > the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s > for the task at hand. > > What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: > 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition > 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the > person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called > for > 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem > best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" > > In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, > and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each > time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies > the Chair or their rep on the NomCom > > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to represent >> the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the >> caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, this >> could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on other >> civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] >> >> This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are >> endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that have >> no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >>> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the >>> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to >>> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and input. >>> >>> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we >>> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling for >>> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, and >>> we will look forward to getting wide input. >>> >>> >>> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >>> >>> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for >>> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for >>> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great needs >>> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >>> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance >>> might be useful. >>> >>> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to >>> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would >>> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >>> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >>> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >>> >>> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >>> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations until >>> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion on >>> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for >>> involvement. >>> >>> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the >>> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and >>> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional >>> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of interest – >>> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows >>> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong >>> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and >>> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions until >>> the co ordination group is fully populated. >>> >>> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... >>> >>> >>> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, >>> but also for any future CS representation). >>> >>> We present three different options here. >>> >>> OPTION ONE - VOTING >>> >>> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with >>> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And >>> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where suddenly >>> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support >>> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for us >>> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >>> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And setting >>> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly >>> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which >>> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) >>> >>> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >>> >>> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >>> >>> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter of >>> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some >>> other examples. >>> >>> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. >>> >>> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >>> >>> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so >>> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >>> >>> 2 included known trolls. >>> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only >>> one or two active members. >>> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >>> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual >>> making decisions >>> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >>> >>> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >>> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case for >>> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations >>> because they weren’t randomly selected. >>> >>> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a >>> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important >>> matters of representation best not left to chance. >>> >>> >>> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >>> >>> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, >>> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can >>> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable and >>> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That >>> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could undertake >>> when in place. >>> >>> >>> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to >>> and sorted out. >>> >>> CRITERIA >>> >>> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in >>> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >>> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will >>> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these >>> under consideration >>> >>> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >>> covered? >>> >>> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >>> business)? >>> >>> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, >>> business or government in its categorization? >>> >>> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >>> the existing members? >>> >>> >>> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >>> accountable to its members. >>> >>> >>> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and >>> knowledge of internet governance issues >>> >>> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. >>> >>> >>> >>> Over to everyone for comments. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 katitza at eff.org Wed Jan 22 01:52:15 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:52:15 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Invitation to Join The Day We Fight Back -- February 11th Message-ID: <52DF6A9F.8080205@eff.org> Holas, Here is an invitation to join a grassroot action on February 11th. I hope that you can join in your personal or organizational capacity. Dear Friends of the Internet: The Snowden revelations have provided us with disturbing details and confirmation of some of our worst fears about the NSA and its partners’ spying practices. Indeed, the NSA and its allies in five English-speaking countries have been building a global surveillance infrastructure to “master the internet” and spy on the world’s communications[1]. They are undermining basic encryption standards, the very backbone of the Internet. They have collected the phone records of hundreds of millions of people who are not suspected of any crime. They has swept up the electronic communications of millions of people at home and abroad indiscriminately, exploiting the digital technologies we use to connect and inform. They have secretive data sharing agreements operating outside the rule of law. But we aren’t going to let the NSA and its five allies ruin the Internet. Inspired by the memory of Aaron Swartz, fueled by our victory against SOPA and ACTA, we are joining the DayWeFightBack campaign to demand an end to mass surveillance at home and abroad. The SOPA and ACTA protests were successful because we all took part, as a community. As Aaron Swartz put it, everybody "made themselves the hero of their own story." We can set a date, but we need all of you, the users of the Internet, to make it a movement. When: The Day We Fight Back has been set for February 11th. Here's how you can join the effort: 1. Send an email to rights at eff.org confirming your interest in participating in this action and receiving updates. Let us know what you would like to do in your own country so we can send you more information and amplify your voice. 2. Visit TheDayWeFightBack.org. The organizers in the United States are: Demand Progress, Access, EFF, Internet Taskforce, FFTF, Free Press, Mozilla, Reddit, ThoughtWorks, BoingBoing 3. If you are a citizen of the world, sign the 13 Necessary and Proportionate Principles here: https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/take-action #privacyisaright The organizers of the international action are named below at the end of this email. 4. Use social media tools to announce your participation. 5. Develop memes, tools, websites, and do whatever else you can to encourage others to participate. 6. Be creative -- plan your own action. Go to the streets. Promote the Principles. Then, let us know so we can broadcast your efforts. The current organizers of the international action of the Day We Fight Back are: Amnesty International USA Access (International) Anti-vigilancia (Brasil) Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (Argentina) Asociacion de Internautas - Spain (Spain) CCC (Germany) ContingenteMX (Mexico) CIPPIC (Canada) Digitale Gesellschaft (Germany) Digital Courage (Germany) EFF (International) Electronic Frontiers Australia (Australia)” Hiperderecho (Peru) ICT Consumers Association of Kenya Open Rights Group (UK) OpenMedia.org (Canada/International) OpenNet Korea (South Korea) Panoptykon Foundation (Poland) Privacy International (International) PEN International (International) TEDIC (Paraguay) RedPaTodos (Colombia) ShareDefense (Balkans) We are from the Internet and we are here to help. [1] Learn more: Eyes Wide Open https://www.privacyinternational.org/projects/eyes-wide-open -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 555 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Jan 22 03:25:21 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:25:21 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi everyone From: Marianne Franklin > Date: Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:57 To: andrew Puddephatt >, "parminder at itforchange.net" >, "" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance Dear Andrew and all I’m heading offline for a week now and have had little substantive response to the document below. If there are any comments could you send them through to me by February 6th – after that we’ll consult about turning this into a submission in time for the deadline of March 1st. Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November. Taking advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Project. The results of our conversation are set out below and in a word attachment. Drawing upon the responses to the survey and other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at: · The case for reform · Possible criteria for reforming IG governance · An evaluation of the different proposals for reform · Preliminary conclusions. Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set out for an IG system, that a dispersed system of governance has more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of governance. We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining a distributed governance regime, but that it should be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about the options and risks here. It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from then list. To simplify things I suggest that people submit three categories of comments. 1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach put forward. I suggest that they develop their own approach find their own collaborators and work on their own ideas. May a hundred flowers bloom. 2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which require further discussion. I will then collect these put together an online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a structured fashion. 3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences. These I will collect and try and resolve through e-mail conversation. We’ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were represented. And although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by March 1st, this position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums. If you have other suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me know. Andrew Puddephatt Internet Governance: proposals for reform ***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project*** In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and other relevant forums – Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society organisations. In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors were aware of: 1. What is the case for reform of IG and do we have a common understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are? 2. If there is a case for reform what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic commitment to human rights and social justice? 3. How do the various proposals for reform stack up against these criteria – what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks and benefits. 4. What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the approach? The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and discussion. 1) Case for reform Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: · There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. · There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and language. · Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled. · The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. · Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. · There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest decisions. · There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the internet. · Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. · Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of “state sovereignty” on the global internet. · There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made – there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them. · The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as an international medium, and its international character and the benefits of free expression and access to information that it brings need to be preserved. · There is a unique property to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordination to make it effective. 2) Criteria for Internet Governance NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to unite around a core set of principles. After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were an essential element of any democratic international governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international governance rather than looking for criteria that only applied to the internet – in order to avoid the pitfalls of “internet exceptionalism”. Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally very weak lines of accountability between a government's positions on the international stage and its electorate back at home, open international spaces with broad-based participation can be important opportunities for bringing international decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the group found that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for assessing any proposed changes. The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena: a) Processes · Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; · Accountable: internal and external accountability process should exist, including a way of challenging decisions; · Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver · Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and developments in the field. b) Participation · Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many. · All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements · Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions · Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote. c) Underlying Values · Human rights values should be at the core of any governance process and outcomes. · Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global public good). 3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end of the document. UN Committee Model Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by governments. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and observers from international organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter) A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body – identifying issues raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific issues by rough consensus. Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet Democracy Project) This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then be responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to that issue. Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project) Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve experts and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project’s model appears to be more of a ‘proof of concept’ that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the models outlined above. Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political interests. As a single body with oversight – potentially – of all public policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that the body would not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create risks that those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a few times per year. Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet community. There were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn’t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from IGF discussions – this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group. The advantage of these models was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues are addressed. In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed approach where many institutions are involved in different aspects of internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate issues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised approach in the UN Committee model – and to a lesser extent Jeremy’s MIPC model. A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach. 4) Existing Institutions The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the ideas above considering the overall governance regime. IGF The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms were identified: · Providing stronger leadership; · A better funded and supported secretariat; · Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system; · Clearing house function; · More output-orientated; · Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for issues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way to global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels; · Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium businesses); · Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. ICANN In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including removing the privilege of the US which was seen as important though largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve both location and structure. However, the group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue. 5) Preliminary conclusions From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Jan 22 03:46:40 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:46:40 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> <9F71CCA554EF418E8097E3C8F6E76577@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear Ian, all I will say +1 in enlarging the current group in place. ]Jeanette, do you think that a mandate of 1 year for the nomcom will be a good idea? Best Nnenna On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > Thanks All for the beautiful contribution. > I buy into the idea of networks. > Since public interest is of great importance; Can we identify government > representative that do have passion on civil societies view? The > "Coordinating Nomcom of Networks" will be a good platform to engineering > transparency and accountability. > > Best > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Thanks everyone for comments. So far we have had some discussion on >> Nomcom alternatives which has put up some interesting thoughts. >> >> On other subjects - >> >> Any thoughts on expansion and criteria - particularly whether or not to >> have individuals as well as representatives of organisations on co >> ordination group? >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Nnenna Nwakanma >> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 8:35 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; >> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - >> call for comments >> >> >> How about a "network nomcom"? >> >> Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of >> improvement of what we have now. >> >> What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of >> different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. >> >> Here is my suggestion: >> >> 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions >> with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) >> 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. >> 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, >> a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom >> 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed >> 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their >> networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide >> the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s >> for the task at hand. >> >> What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: >> 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition >> 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the >> person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called >> for >> 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem >> best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" >> >> In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, >> and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each >> time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies >> the Chair or their rep on the NomCom >> >> >> Best >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to >>> represent >>> the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the >>> caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, >>> this >>> could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on >>> other >>> civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] >>> >>> This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are >>> endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that >>> have >>> no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the >>>> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to >>>> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and >>>> input. >>>> >>>> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we >>>> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling >>>> for >>>> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, >>>> and >>>> we will look forward to getting wide input. >>>> >>>> >>>> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? >>>> >>>> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for >>>> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for >>>> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great >>>> needs >>>> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing >>>> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance >>>> might be useful. >>>> >>>> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to >>>> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would >>>> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its >>>> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to >>>> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP >>>> >>>> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of >>>> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations >>>> until >>>> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion >>>> on >>>> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for >>>> involvement. >>>> >>>> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the >>>> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and >>>> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional >>>> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of >>>> interest – >>>> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows >>>> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong >>>> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and >>>> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions >>>> until >>>> the co ordination group is fully populated. >>>> >>>> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, >>>> but also for any future CS representation). >>>> >>>> We present three different options here. >>>> >>>> OPTION ONE - VOTING >>>> >>>> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with >>>> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And >>>> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where >>>> suddenly >>>> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support >>>> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for >>>> us >>>> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our >>>> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And >>>> setting >>>> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly >>>> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which >>>> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) >>>> >>>> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. >>>> >>>> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM >>>> >>>> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter >>>> of >>>> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some >>>> other examples. >>>> >>>> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this >>>> >>>> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so >>>> random Nomcoms, with the following results: >>>> >>>> 2 included known trolls. >>>> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only >>>> one or two active members. >>>> One refused to work with the appointed Chair >>>> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual >>>> making decisions >>>> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” >>>> >>>> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when >>>> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case >>>> for >>>> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations >>>> because they weren’t randomly selected. >>>> >>>> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a >>>> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important >>>> matters of representation best not left to chance. >>>> >>>> >>>> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM >>>> >>>> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, >>>> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can >>>> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable >>>> and >>>> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That >>>> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could >>>> undertake >>>> when in place. >>>> >>>> >>>> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to >>>> and sorted out. >>>> >>>> CRITERIA >>>> >>>> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in >>>> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate >>>> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will >>>> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these >>>> under consideration >>>> >>>> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all >>>> regions >>>> covered? >>>> >>>> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >>>> business)? >>>> >>>> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, >>>> business or government in its categorization? >>>> >>>> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one >>>> of >>>> the existing members? >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent >>>> and >>>> accountable to its members. >>>> >>>> >>>> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and >>>> knowledge of internet governance issues >>>> >>>> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Over to everyone for comments. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Wed Jan 22 06:26:08 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 03:26:08 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] One Planet, One Internet: A Call To the International Community to Fight Against Mass Surveillance Message-ID: <52DFAAD0.6030809@eff.org> One Planet, One Internet: A Call To the International Community to Fight Against Mass Surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/february-11-day-we-fight-back-calling-international-community The Snowden revelations have confirmed our worst fears about online spying. They show that the NSA and its allies have been building a global surveillance infrastructure to “master the internet” and spy on the world’s communications. These shady groups have undermined basic encryption standards, and riddled the Internet’s backbone with surveillance equipment. They have collected the phone records of hundreds of millions of people none of whom are suspected of any crime. They have swept up the electronic communications of millions of people at home and overseas indiscriminately, exploiting the digital technologies we use to connect and inform. They spy on the population of allies, and share that data with other organizations, all outside the rule of law. We aren’t going to let the NSA and its allies ruin the Internet. Inspired by the memory of Aaron Swartz, fueled by our victory against SOPA and ACTA, the global digital rights community are uniting to fight back. On February 11, on the Day We Fight Back, the world will demand an end to mass surveillance in every country, by every state, regardless of boundaries or politics. The SOPA and ACTA protests were successful because we all took part, as a community. As Aaron Swartz put it, everybody "made themselves the hero of their own story." We can set a date, but we need everyone, all the users of the Global Internet, to make this a movement. Here’s part of our plan (but it’s just the beginning). Last year, before Ed Snowden had spoken to the world, digital rights activists united on 13 Principles. The Principles spelled out just why mass surveillance was a violation of human rights, and gave sympathetic lawmakers and judges a list of fixes they could apply to the lawless Internet spooks. On the day we fight back, we want the world to sign onto those principles. We want politicians to pledge to uphold them. We want the world to see we care. Here's how you can join the effort: Send an email to rights (AT) eff.org confirming your interest in participating in this action and receiving updates. Let us know what you would like to do in your own country so we can send you more information and amplify your voice. Visit TheDayWeFightBack.org and Take Action. Join your fellow global citizens and, sign the 13 Necessary and Proportionate Principles here: https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/take-action/EFF and twee #privacyisaright Use social media tools to announce your participation. Develop memes, tools, websites, and do whatever else you can to encourage others to participate. Be creative -- plan your own actions and pledge. Go to the streets. Promote the Principles in your own country. Then, let us know what your plan is, so we can link and re-broadcast your efforts. The organizers of the Day We Fight Back are: Demand Progress Access EFF Internet Taskforce FFTF Free Press Mozilla Reddit ThoughtWorks BoingBoing The organizers of the international action center are: Amnesty International USA Access (International) Anti-vigilancia (Brasil) Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (Argentina) Asociacion de Internautas - Spain (Spain) Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet (Colombia) Bolo Bhi (Pakistan) CCC (Germany) ContingenteMX (Mexico) CIPPIC (Canada) Digitale Gesellschaft (Germany) Digital Courage (Germany) Electronic Frontier Foundation (International) Electronic Frontiers Australia (Australia) Hiperderecho (Peru) ICT Consumers Association of Kenya Open Rights Group (UK) OpenMedia.org (Canada/International) OpenNet Korea (South Korea) Panoptykon Foundation (Poland) Privacy International (International) PEN International (International) TEDIC (Paraguay) RedPaTodos (Colombia) ShareDefense (Balkans) The Internet’s spies have spent too long listening on our most private thoughts and fears. Now it’s time they really heard us. If you share our anger, share the principles: and fight back. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 555 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Jan 7 11:32:16 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:32:16 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bgovernance=5D_Meeting_in_S=E3o?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: Dear Glaser, Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the next planning meetings? At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives in the various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at least representatives from international civil society should attend such meetings to report back to it's constituencies. As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now trying to create some legitimacy for this network by electing it's representatives for the steering/coordination committee, I think that at least enabling elected representatives for 1net to attend and report back should be a way forward to start opening up the planing process while the Br committees are not formed yet. IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this process. all the best joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon researcher Center for Technology and Society Fundação Getulio Vargas PGP 0x016B8E73 On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* > > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Jan 22 11:37:47 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:37:47 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI === CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance, chaired by Sweden’s Carl Bildt Davos-Klosters, Switzerland – January 22, 2014 – Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). Announced today at the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, the Global Commission is a two-year initiative that will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. “In most countries, increased attention is being given to all the issues of net freedom, net security and net governance. And they are, in my view, closely related to each other. The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies.” The commission will include about 25 members drawn from various fields and from around the world, including policy and government, academia and civil society. The Global Commission on Internet Governance will encourage globally inclusive public discussions and debates on the future of Internet governance through a public consultation platform, and through other institutional, media, and academic channels. It will create and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance that can act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet. The commission will focus on four key themes: • Enhancing governance legitimacy; • Stimulating innovation; • Ensuring human rights online; • Avoiding systemic risks. “The work of this vitally important undertaking will be supported by a highly innovative research program at both CIGI and Chatham House as well as widespread stakeholder consultations with civil society and the private sector. The Commission’s work is also intended to build on a number of important strategic dialogues that are already underway and to feed into ongoing policy discussions at the global level,” said Fen Osler Hampson, Director of the Global Security & Politics Program at CIGI. “The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time. The Commission will work to develop ideas and propose a policy framework that enhances the legitimacy of Internet governance whilst preserving innovation. Chatham House is honoured to partner with Foreign Minister Bildt and CIGI in the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Dr. Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House. Members of the commission currently include the following, with full biographies available at www.ourinternet.org: • Carl Bildt, Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance • Gordon Smith, Deputy Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance • Dominic Barton • Pablo Bello • Dae-Whan Chang • Moez Chatchouk • Michael Chertoff • Anriette Esterhuysen • Hartmut Glaser • Dorothy Gordon • Dame Wendy Hall • Fen Osler Hampson • Melissa Hathaway • Patricia Lewis • Mathias Müller von Blumencron • Beth Simone Noveck • Joseph S. Nye • Sir David Omand • Nii Quaynor • Latha Reddy • Marietje Schaake • Tobby Simon • Michael Spence • Paul Twomey • Pindar Wong “For many people, Internet governance sounds technical and esoteric, but the reality is that the issues are ‘high politics’ and of consequences to all users of the Internet, present and future,” said CIGI Distinguished Fellow Gordon Smith, who is deputy chair of the new commission. “Internet governance is too important to be left just to governments. The Internet is a fundamental part of the global economy and how we manage its future will be decisive in facilitating development for all. Finding a way through the issues of access, privacy, security, protection and surveillance requires in-depth consideration and the wisdom that the Global Commission will provide,” said Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security Department, Chatham House. Among those supporting the commission’s work will be CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, who will act as its Director of Research. Additional commission members will be confirmed over time. For more information on the Global Commission on Internet Governance, please visit: www.ourinternet.org. Follow the commission on twitter @OurInternetGCIG. === _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Jan 22 17:18:30 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:18:30 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance In-Reply-To: References: <52D3ED9E.5050903@itforchange.net> <52D8015A.6010100@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi Andrew and all, After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message. First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of power, insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases for governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that although we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all along. In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inclusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform. - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is correct... - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC produce recommendations and send them to other organizations: a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there is no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the subject would not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate governance of the internet to traditional international regimes? c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget the drama before Bali). e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little chance to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very, very boosted and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pay more and the business and the technical community were alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary funding to the IGF? f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee model, but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very prone to power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources. - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained. That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can continue the discussions. Thanks again for the good start Marília On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Hi everyone > > From: Marianne Franklin > Date: Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:57 > To: andrew Puddephatt , "parminder at itforchange.net" > , "" < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG > governance > > Dear Andrew and all > > I’m heading offline for a week now and have had little substantive > response to the document below. If there are any comments could you send > them through to me by February 6th – after that we’ll consult about turning > this into a submission in time for the deadline of March 1st. > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org * > > > > > Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look > at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November. Taking > advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, > we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and > Internet Democracy Project. The results of our conversation are set out > below and in a word attachment. Drawing upon the responses to the survey > and other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at: > > > > · The case for reform > > · Possible criteria for reforming IG governance > > · An evaluation of the different proposals for reform > > · Preliminary conclusions. > > > > Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set > out for an IG system, that a *dispersed system of governance* has more > benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of governance. We go on > to conclude in favour of maintaining a distributed governance regime, but > that it should be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new > coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific > multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed > that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more > research is needed about the options and risks here. > > > > It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from > then list. To simplify things I suggest that people submit three > categories of comments. > > > > 1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach put > forward. I suggest that they develop their own approach find their own > collaborators and work on their own ideas. May a hundred flowers bloom. > > 2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which > require further discussion. I will then collect these put together an > online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a > structured fashion. > > 3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing > etc. but who can live with the differences. These I will collect and try > and resolve through e-mail conversation. > > > > We’ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it would > be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were represented. And > although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by March 1st, this > position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums. If you have > other suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me > know. > > > > Andrew Puddephatt > > > > > > *Internet Governance: proposals for reform * > > ***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy > Project*** > > In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for internet > governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian > Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and > other relevant forums – Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated > a small group of civil society organisations. > > In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group > worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey > responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the > IG institutional framework that the contributors were aware of: > > 1. What is the case for reform of IG and do we have a common > understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are? > > 2. If there is a case for reform what are the criteria for a > reformed system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic > commitment to human rights and social justice? > > 3. How do the various proposals for reform stack up against these > criteria – what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks > and benefits. > > 4. What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what > are those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. > Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the > group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the > approach? > > The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and discussion. > > > > *1) Case for reform* > > Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the > following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: > > · There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, > particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. > > · There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and > language. > > · Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, > have not been adequately tackled. > > · The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its > mandate. > > · Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates > difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be > increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. > > · There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This > also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human > rights/public interest decisions. > > · There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or > global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This > means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical > responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the > internet. > > · Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many > governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to > tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently > transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. > > · Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of > “state sovereignty” on the global internet. > > · There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are > made – there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between > them. > > · The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has > developed from the beginning as an international medium, and its > international character and the benefits of free expression and access to > information that it brings need to be preserved. > > · There is a unique property to the internet that requires global > cooperation and coordination to make it effective. > > > > *2) Criteria for Internet Governance * > > NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second > Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested baseline > for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the > outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to unite around a core > set of principles. > > After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were an > essential element of any democratic international governance system. The > aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international > governance rather than looking for criteria that only applied to the > internet – in order to avoid the pitfalls of “internet exceptionalism”. > Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally very weak lines of > accountability between a government's positions on the international stage > and its electorate back at home, open international spaces with broad-based > participation can be important opportunities for bringing international > decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the > group found that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, > could have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond > the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are aspirational > and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. > Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for assessing > any proposed changes. > > The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the > governance of complex global phenomena: > > *a)* *Processes* > > · Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for > anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; > > · Accountable: internal and external accountability process > should exist, including a way of challenging decisions; > > · Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to > deliver > > · Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and > developments in the field. > > > > *b) Participation* > > · Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to > many. > > · All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at > good decisions/agreements > > · Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions > > · Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should > be able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that > this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. > But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative > supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote. > > > > *c) Underlying Values* > > · Human rights values should be at the core of any governance > process and outcomes. > > · Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding > of the internet as a global public good). > > > > *3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform * > > The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current > system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models > analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the brevity and crudeness > of the model titles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More > details about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end > of the document. > > > > *UN Committee Model* > > *Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of > 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of different > stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global > internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the technical > bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception that > oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical > Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by > governments.* > > > > *Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm)* > > *A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices > of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, > private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and > observers from international organisations). The MIPC would take up issues > forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt > to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The > recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the development of > binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, which would > generally be at the national level. * > > > > *Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang > Kleinwachter)* > > *A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the > IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. > The MIPOC would be a coordinating body – identifying issues raised at the > IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, > either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a > technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could > be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific > issues by rough consensus. * > > > > *Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet > Democracy Project)* > > *This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC > model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD > instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a > clearing house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, > the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which > pre-existing institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. > Once an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then > be responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to > respond to that issue.* > > > > *Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by > Internet & Jurisdiction Project) * > > *Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific > internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical > standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For > higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve > experts and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the > Internet & Jurisdiction Project’s model appears to be more of a ‘proof of > concept’ that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the models > outlined above. * > > > > > > Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the > model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling > anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. > It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with > detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate > seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potential clashes > with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN > Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of > similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political > interests. As a single body with oversight – potentially – of all public > policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that > the body would not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions > across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it > was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed group of > people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy issues. > The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create risks that > those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape > them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of > a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged > meeting just a few times per year. > > Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centralisation, > suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of > these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role > as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and for each > issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet > community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for > enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level > discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at > the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths > of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the > wider internet community. There were, however, concerns given that the IGF > hasn’t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. For > example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from > IGF discussions – this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, > improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. > > A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly > supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the > current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the > coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group. The advantage > of these models was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater > clarity (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues > are addressed. > > In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed approach > where many institutions are involved in different aspects of > internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the > concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate issues > for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against > power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised > approach in the UN Committee model – and to a lesser extent Jeremy’s MIPC > model. > > A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in > expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more > dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. > However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was seen > to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, self-forming > multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage those without power > and resources. > > There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed > models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN > Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making > it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative ways > of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be > a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach. > > > > *4) Existing Institutions* > > The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the current > structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an extent > that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently > addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the ideas above > considering the overall governance regime. > > > > *IGF * > > The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of sources > below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms were > identified: > > · Providing stronger leadership; > > · A better funded and supported secretariat; > > · Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and > all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system; > > · Clearing house function; > > · More output-orientated; > > · Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of > national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for issues > of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way to > global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels; > > · Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south > governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all > institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium > businesses); > > · Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > > > *ICANN * > > In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including > removing the privilege of the US which was seen as important though > largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve both > location and structure. However, the group felt that it was necessary to > examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing so in > order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. > Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue. > > > > *5) Preliminary conclusions * > > From the response to the survey and by analysing various alternative > models using the criteria set out above, there seems to be potential to > come to a rough consensus combining a number of ideas commanding broad > support among civil society. > > > > *Dispersed vs. centralised* > > A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more > appropriate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise > could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to > navigate but a dispersed system had fewer risks for political or corporate > capture and enabled issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to > engage on specific issues. *On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both > approaches weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance*. > > > > *Broad participation & role of reformed IGF* > > Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad > as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an > important space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act > as a central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related > public policies within a dispersed system. *The reform could entail: a > stronger leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between > the IGF and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link > to national and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening > participation and reforming the MAG.* > > > > *A new co-ordinating function* > > There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating > function to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related > policy making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating > group should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that > group should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). *A > new coordinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the > form, location and processes by which that function is exercised. * > > > > *Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups * > > When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad > agreement that these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder > working groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn’t a > decision yet on where/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by > different institutions with mandate over different issues, by a working > group tied to CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision > making there was broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by > consensus with the option to shift to another process where necessary and > appropriate (including multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). *New > internet policy issues should be dealt with through ad hoc > multi-stakeholder working groups which are issue specific.* *More > discussion is needed about the form, location and processes of those > multi-stakeholder working groups.* > > > > *ICANN reform* > > *A reformed ICANN – details to be worked on further.* > > > > *6) List of Sources* > > > http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ > > http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/ > > > http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf > > http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp > > > http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true > > http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf > > http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf > > http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf > > http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/ > > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ > > > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg > > > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf > > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx > > > > > > > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* | *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org * > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From laura at article19.org Wed Jan 22 17:58:44 2014 From: laura at article19.org (Laura Tresca) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:58:44 +0000 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> What´s the impact of this Comission over the Brazilian meeting? ARTICLE 19 Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org ________________________________ De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Nnenna Nwakanma [nnenna75 at gmail.com] Enviado: quarta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2014 14:37 Para: Governance; Assunto: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI FYI === CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance, chaired by Sweden’s Carl Bildt Davos-Klosters, Switzerland – January 22, 2014 – Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). Announced today at the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, the Global Commission is a two-year initiative that will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. “In most countries, increased attention is being given to all the issues of net freedom, net security and net governance. And they are, in my view, closely related to each other. The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies.” The commission will include about 25 members drawn from various fields and from around the world, including policy and government, academia and civil society. The Global Commission on Internet Governance will encourage globally inclusive public discussions and debates on the future of Internet governance through a public consultation platform, and through other institutional, media, and academic channels. It will create and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance that can act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet. The commission will focus on four key themes: • Enhancing governance legitimacy; • Stimulating innovation; • Ensuring human rights online; • Avoiding systemic risks. “The work of this vitally important undertaking will be supported by a highly innovative research program at both CIGI and Chatham House as well as widespread stakeholder consultations with civil society and the private sector. The Commission’s work is also intended to build on a number of important strategic dialogues that are already underway and to feed into ongoing policy discussions at the global level,” said Fen Osler Hampson, Director of the Global Security & Politics Program at CIGI. “The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time. The Commission will work to develop ideas and propose a policy framework that enhances the legitimacy of Internet governance whilst preserving innovation. Chatham House is honoured to partner with Foreign Minister Bildt and CIGI in the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Dr. Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House. Members of the commission currently include the following, with full biographies available at www.ourinternet.org: • Carl Bildt, Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance • Gordon Smith, Deputy Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance • Dominic Barton • Pablo Bello • Dae-Whan Chang • Moez Chatchouk • Michael Chertoff • Anriette Esterhuysen • Hartmut Glaser • Dorothy Gordon • Dame Wendy Hall • Fen Osler Hampson • Melissa Hathaway • Patricia Lewis • Mathias Müller von Blumencron • Beth Simone Noveck • Joseph S. Nye • Sir David Omand • Nii Quaynor • Latha Reddy • Marietje Schaake • Tobby Simon • Michael Spence • Paul Twomey • Pindar Wong “For many people, Internet governance sounds technical and esoteric, but the reality is that the issues are ‘high politics’ and of consequences to all users of the Internet, present and future,” said CIGI Distinguished Fellow Gordon Smith, who is deputy chair of the new commission. “Internet governance is too important to be left just to governments. The Internet is a fundamental part of the global economy and how we manage its future will be decisive in facilitating development for all. Finding a way through the issues of access, privacy, security, protection and surveillance requires in-depth consideration and the wisdom that the Global Commission will provide,” said Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security Department, Chatham House. Among those supporting the commission’s work will be CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, who will act as its Director of Research. Additional commission members will be confirmed over time. For more information on the Global Commission on Internet Governance, please visit: www.ourinternet.org. Follow the commission on twitter @OurInternetGCIG. === _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Jan 22 19:52:24 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:52:24 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting Message-ID: Dear all, The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different interactions with different lists: - Is it going to be invitation only? - If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who gets invited? - There will be travel support? - If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also be invited? What are the restrictions? - There will be remote participation? - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? - Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of Brazilian Carnival) As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, by Friday at the most. I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support of other stakeholder groups. But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) +1? Suggestions for more questions? best joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Jan 22 20:42:31 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:42:31 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the topics on the agenda will likely be: - Committee work plan (roadmap) - Participation criteria for the meeting - Meeting agenda - Meeting format - Kind of expected outcomes - Public consultation As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. Best Marília On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > Joana, thanks so much. > > Adding in a few more : > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this WG > propose how to summarize submissions? > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public free > access? > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be given > priority? > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joana Varon > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > To: ; ; < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > before 27th meeting > > > > Dear all, > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set > of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order > to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different > interactions with different lists: > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who > gets invited? > * There will be travel support? > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also > be invited? What are the restrictions? > * There will be remote participation? > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of > Brazilian Carnival) > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe > others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our > actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to > logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, > by Friday at the most. > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be > attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support > of other stakeholder groups. > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also > reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or > more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their > constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > best > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Thu Jan 23 05:37:58 2014 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:37:58 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52E0F106.2000104@gold.ac.uk> Dear Joana Thanks for this. The list covers as far as I can see the main concerns. I hope that there will be clear answers to them forthcoming. If not, then perhaps we need to consider next steps as there is little time left to spend waiting for these answers. That is a pessimist view. For now I will opt for the optimist one and support the suggestion Joana makes below that all reps on all committee pose the same questions. keep up the good work! MF On 23/01/2014 00:52, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a > set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap > in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in > different interactions with different lists: > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides > who gets invited? > * There will be travel support? > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can > also be invited? What are the restrictions? > * There will be remote participation? > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak > and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome > oriented? > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the > middle of Brazilian Carnival) > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe > others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan > our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as > related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even > before the meeting, by Friday at the most. > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be > attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with > support of other stakeholder groups. > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could > also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have > these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from > their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross > post) > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > best > > joana > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Thu Jan 23 06:50:18 2014 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:50:18 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52E101FA.5060004@digitaldissidents.org> +1! Best, Niels -- Niels ten Oever T: @conflictmedia E: niels at digitaldissidents.org C: nto at jabber.org A digital signature can be attached to this e-mail, you need openPGP software to verify it. See: http://is.gd/Y06WEs Key fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 23-01-14 01:52, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a > set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap > in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in > different interactions with different lists: > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides > who gets invited? > * There will be travel support? > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can > also be invited? What are the restrictions? > * There will be remote participation? > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak > and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome > oriented? > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the > middle of Brazilian Carnival) > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe > others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan > our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as > related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even > before the meeting, by Friday at the most. > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be > attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with > support of other stakeholder groups. > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could > also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have > these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from > their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross > post) > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > best > > joana > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Fri Jan 24 04:41:48 2014 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:41:48 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Job opportunity at APC: Project Coordinator - internet rights in India, Malaysia and Pakistan Message-ID: <6DF67345-E1CD-425F-94C6-F3233A4A60EC@apc.org> Dear all, Sending you all this call in the case it is of your interest. Please help us with dissemination. Valeria ----------------- Job opportunity at APC: Project Coordinator - protecting freedom of information, expression and association online in India, Malaysia and Pakistan http://www.apc.org/en/news/job-opportunity-apc-project-coordinator-protecting Deadline for applications: 10 February, 2014 Join the APC Communications and Information Policy Programme (CIPP) to coordinate APC’s policy advocacy and capacity building and activities in the project “Networking for freedom online and offline: protecting freedom of information, expression and association on the internet in India, Malaysia and Pakistan”. About the project: As its title illustrates, the overall goal of this initiative is to protect and promote respect for human rights on the internet, particularly the right to information, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of association and the right to freedom of assembly, in three countries. It is being implemented with project partners – BytesForAll Pakistan (B4A), Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (PKKS EMPOWER), Malaysia, and Digital Empower Foundation (DEF) in India. The project coordinator will be responsible for overall project coordination working closely with these three organisations. The specific objectives of the project are to: Build awareness and knowledge among the project’s target groups of internet freedoms as an enabler of human rights and democratisation. Provide human rights defenders (our primary target group) with knowledge, tools, networks and support to respond to internet related human rights violations and to communicate more safely and securely online and Leverage strategic linkages between national, regional and global advocacy for human rights on the internet through making use of opportunities presented by the Internet Governance Forum and the UN’s Human Rights Council, among others. We expect the project will to lead to: Improved recognition and protection of human rights on the internet by the public, civil society organisations, government, the judiciary and human rights bodies in the three countries. Improved understanding, skills and strategies (including institutional policies) among human rights defenders and civil society organisations of how restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of association on the internet operate. Improved capacities among local rights groups in countries to advocate on issues of human rights and the internet over the longer term, including the formation and/or strengthening of multi-stakeholder networks to advocate for internet freedoms. Main purpose of job: The project coordinator will be responsible for the coordination of the overall implementation of this new project building on APC’s ongoing work in the region. This includes all aspects of project oversight and coordination in capacity building, leading policy advocacy strategy, production of training materials, organisation of national consultations and participation in UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) processes, participation in regional and global processes, campaign and advocacy support to national teams, partnership management, supervision of project staff, budget management, report writing and monitoring and evaluation. The project coordinator will also contribute to strengthen the relationship between APC and its members in the region and be CIPP’s main liaison for our policy work. Start date: 1 March 2014 Deadline for applications: February 10, 2014 Tasks and responsibilities: The project coordinator will report to the APC policy programme manager and be responsible for the following tasks and responsibilities: Coordinate overall implementation of the project Coordinate the project’s research outputs Develop and coordinate APC’s regional rights advocacy strategies working closely with APC’s Human Rights specialist Oversee production of training materials and implementation of training strategies and activities for national human rights institutions, human rights defenders and civil society organisations from target countries Facilitate national consultations, regional capacity building and stakeholder participation in the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review Run and present workshops related to human rights on the internet at the regional and global Internet Governance Forum. Develop online resource platforms and communication spaces for the project Oversee production of media and communications outputs in collaboration with the APC communications and media team Establish and maintain positive relationships with project partners, convene project meetings, and establish processes for project meetings and collaboration. Represent the APC, work with members in the region and build strategic partnerships in the field within and outside the region. This may include frequent international travel to participate on specific events and meetings. Supervise project staff (includes management and supervision of contracts with partners and sub-contractors) Budget management Establish an agreed monitoring and evaluation framework for the actions Oversee project financial management, including financial and narrative reporting among project partners Produce and submit reports and project outputs in line with the project reporting guidelines and timelines. Background and experience: An academic, research or advocacy background in ICT/internet policy in a human rights and/or development context At least five years experience working policy advocacy work in relation to ICT/ internet policy and human rights Extensive knowledge of human rights and internet policy and regulation, including knowledge of or experience with human rights mechanisms or processes At least three years experience in project management including campaign coordination, reporting, and people and budget management Enthusiasm for networking and be an inclusive network builder Ability to plan and think strategically Experience and background in civil society networking Knowledge of and contacts with human rights organisations, human rights defenders, democracy activists and internet rights activists is an advantage Other requirements: Experience in working in Pakistan, India and/or Malaysia and/or the Asia region Excellent English writing and oral communication skills, including public speaking experience Good writing skills and experience in writing reports Able to work in a team and under pressure Able to work independently and to manage people mainly via online communications Willing to travel frequently Competent computer and internet skills and experience in working in an online environment The following will provide candidates with further advantage: Ability to communicate in Hindi, Urdu or Bahasa Malaysia is a distinct advantage Remuneration and duration of contract: This is a full time contract for an initial twelve-month period (renewable depending on performance and availability of funding). Remuneration is based on APC’s salary scale for the position for project coordinator. Short-listed candidates will receive specific information on the salary range on request. Location: The incumbent must live and work in the region and must have excellent internet access. APC provides an equipment allowance but require staff to use their own computers. APC is a truly virtual organisation and does not have a physical headquarters. We do our work online. For this position we particularly encourage candidates from the global South. How to apply: Please send a CV and a covering letter in English that illustrates your interest in the position. You should include the following information: Your experience with human rights and/or internet rights Your ICT policy experience Your experience in advocacy and capacity building Your experience in networking and partnership building Your experience in coordinating campaigns targeting diverse constituencies Your experience in working in Pakistan, India and/or Malaysia and or the Asia region Your experience or expectations around building the capacity of activists for whom sometimes the subject area will be relatively new Your experience around building interaction between human rights actors and actors involved in the access and use of internet for social justice Your background in project management and team coordination, specifically in an international and/or online context Your computer skills Where you live Languages you speak and write Other information you think might be of importance to our assessment of your application Three references: names, relationship, contact details; at least one of these should be related to project or campaign that you have managed. Please send this information via email with ‘Networking for freedom online and offline project coordinator’ in the subject line to: jobs at apc.org by February 10 2014 0900 UTC. Please note only short-listed candidates will be contacted. (END/2014) ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jan 24 15:16:45 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:16:45 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Preparation for Executive Committee mtg Message-ID: Dear all, The agenda of the upcoming meeting of the executive committee is still open for comments and suggestions, but it is gaining shape. Joana and others proposed some important questions already to be forwarded to the meeting. In addition to that, I think that it would be important if we could propose guidelines on how to address the most important points. There is still a lot "in the air" and it may be difficult to make detailed proposals at this stage, but it may also mean an opportunity if we are proactive. In topics like participation criteria, public consultation and format of the meeting for instance, maybe we could point out what would be important from a CS standpoint. What do you think? Best Marília 9.00 - 9.20 - Welcome and introductions. 9.20 - 10.00 - Work Plan (meetings, teleconferences, relation with the secretariat,etc.) 10.00 - 10.45 - April Meeting agenda (main topics) 10.45 - 11.00 - coffee/tea break 11.00 - 12.30 - Participation criteria 12.30 - 14.00 - Lunch break 14.00 - 14.30 - Expected outcomes 14.30 - 15.00 - Public consultation 15.00 - 15.15 - coffee/tea break 15.15 - 16.30 - Meeting format/meeting agenda 16.30 - 17.00 - Wrap-up, Next steps. 17.00 - Adjourn -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jan 24 17:38:48 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:38:48 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Preparation for Executive Committee mtg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can a commitment to excellent RP for the meeting be requested at this stage, please? From where I sit, I don't know when it would be considered appropriate, but, from considering where most of us will be sitting, which will probably not be in Brazil... I think that this is a basic logistical preparation which must be built-in to the meeting from the beginning. We are counting on you to ensure our inclusion. Thanks! Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * On 24 January 2014 14:16, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > > The agenda of the upcoming meeting of the executive committee is still > open for comments and suggestions, but it is gaining shape. > > > > Joana and others proposed some important questions already to be forwarded > to the meeting. In addition to that, I think that it would be important if > we could propose guidelines on how to address the most important points. > > > > There is still a lot "in the air" and it may be difficult to make detailed > proposals at this stage, but it may also mean an opportunity if we are > proactive. In topics like participation criteria, public consultation and > format of the meeting for instance, maybe we could point out what would be > important from a CS standpoint. > > What do you think? > > > Best > > Marília > > > > > 9.00 - 9.20 - Welcome and introductions. > > > > 9.20 - 10.00 - Work Plan (meetings, teleconferences, relation with the > secretariat,etc.) > > 10.00 - 10.45 - April Meeting agenda (main topics) > > 10.45 - 11.00 - coffee/tea break > > 11.00 - 12.30 - Participation criteria > > > > 12.30 - 14.00 - Lunch break > > > > 14.00 - 14.30 - Expected outcomes > > 14.30 - 15.00 - Public consultation > > 15.00 - 15.15 - coffee/tea break > > 15.15 - 16.30 - Meeting format/meeting agenda > > 16.30 - 17.00 - Wrap-up, Next steps. > > 17.00 - Adjourn > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 11:35:23 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:35:23 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5BIRPCoalition=5D_=5Bgovernance?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5D_Meeting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_between_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: + 1 on Joana's email. And since Joana and Laura were part of the temporary CS liaison appointees for the 1Net back in the IGF, and since they are in Brazil, it is crucial to have them in the meeting. I expect that Adiel, who will be in this meeting, agree and support that. On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Glaser, > > Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the > steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the next planning > meetings? > > At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives in the > various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at least representatives > from international civil society should attend such meetings to report back > to it's constituencies. > > As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now trying to > create some legitimacy for this network by electing it's representatives > for the steering/coordination committee, I think that at least enabling > elected representatives for 1net to attend and report back should be a way > forward to start opening up the planing process while the Br committees are > not formed yet. IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this > process. > > all the best > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > researcher > Center for Technology and Society > Fundação Getulio Vargas > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > >> >> *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the >> local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details >> related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's >> committees. >> *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since >> they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all >> stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. >> >> Thanks for your support. >> Local Organizing Group/CGI.br >> BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Jan 25 08:58:26 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:58:26 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hi Nnenna, as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB, IGC, Diplo and APC. Best, Rafik 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma > How about a "network nomcom"? > > Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of > improvement of what we have now. > > What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of > different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. > > Here is my suggestion: > > 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions > with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) > 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. > 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, > a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom > 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed > 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their > networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide > the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s > for the task at hand. > > What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: > 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition > 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the > person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called > for > 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem > best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" > > In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, > and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each > time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies > the Chair or their rep on the NomCom > > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to > represent > > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement with the > > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the inclusion, > this > > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good standing on > other > > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] > > > > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where there are > > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or groups that > have > > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members of the > >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It relates to > >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments and > input. > >> > >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after which we > >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a feeling > for > >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and digest, > and > >> we will look forward to getting wide input. > >> > >> > >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? > >> > >> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for > >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for > >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other great > needs > >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing > >> communication between groups working in the area of internet governance > >> might be useful. > >> > >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the group to > >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice would > >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its > >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to > >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society representation. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP > >> > >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of > >> different parties and it was decided to defer further considerations > until > >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some discussion > on > >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible criteria for > >> involvement. > >> > >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to enlarge the > >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could remain and > >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For additional > >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of > interest – > >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That allows > >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a strong > >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good step, and > >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such questions > until > >> the co ordination group is fully populated. > >> > >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to select.... > >> > >> > >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co ordination group, > >> but also for any future CS representation). > >> > >> We present three different options here. > >> > >> OPTION ONE - VOTING > >> > >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with > >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is out? And > >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where > suddenly > >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in support > >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The context for > us > >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our > >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. And > setting > >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a fairly > >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which > >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be included) > >> > >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. > >> > >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM > >> > >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the Charter > of > >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may be some > >> other examples. > >> > >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. > >> > >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this > >> > >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 or so > >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: > >> > >> 2 included known trolls. > >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis of only > >> one or two active members. > >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair > >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one individual > >> making decisions > >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” > >> > >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when > >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in this case > for > >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations > >> because they weren’t randomly selected. > >> > >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a > >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are important > >> matters of representation best not left to chance. > >> > >> > >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM > >> > >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical community, > >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation we can > >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, accountable > and > >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the Nomcom. That > >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could > undertake > >> when in place. > >> > >> > >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be agreed to > >> and sorted out. > >> > >> CRITERIA > >> > >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed these in > >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate > >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, they will > >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left these > >> under consideration > >> > >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - all > regions > >> covered? > >> > >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to > >> business)? > >> > >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, > >> business or government in its categorization? > >> > >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one > of > >> the existing members? > >> > >> > >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent > and > >> accountable to its members. > >> > >> > >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and > >> knowledge of internet governance issues > >> > >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. > >> > >> > >> > >> Over to everyone for comments. > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Sat Jan 25 10:03:34 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:03:34 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] civil society co ordination group - call for comments In-Reply-To: References: <8A6BAD32-F9FA-4158-B3C0-0E6FC2BC3D11@hserus.net> Message-ID: <52E3D246.70303@acm.org> Hi, (left the x-posting in since it concerned both groups) As IRP is a multistakeholder group I think with have a category mismatch.. I still also have an issue with both BB and IGC being represented. BB - is still in formation with only a self appointed group in the leadership. Once they get their whole plan together and the group buys into it and if the differentiation becomes clear, then the combined groups should take a look at it. IGC - has been in a free fall state of crisis for the past 2 years and until it manages to right itself, it has no business in a representational role. But the people and organization, the civil society stakeholders, distributed through those 2 groups are indeed important participants in Ig. So while I dispute the legitimacy the members of BB and IGC being twice represented at this point, I do believe it is a good idea for them to be represented by a singular BB/IGC representative that is an active participant in both groups nd who can be supported by the combined voice of the groups. avri On 25-Jan-14 08:58, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Nnenna, > > as small correction, NCSG is part of the co-ordination group with BB, > IGC, Diplo and APC. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2014/1/20 Nnenna Nwakanma > > > How about a "network nomcom"? > > Having followed all teh models above, I am tending towards a kind of > improvement of what we have now. > > What do we have now? A cordination of individual representatives of > different networks: IRP, APC, Diplo, BB and IGC. > > Here is my suggestion: > > 1. Extend the Coordination group to include other networks/coalitions > with the criteria above. I still prefer "extend" to "expand" :) > 2. Have a Non-voting Chair for 1 year, renewable. > 3. Each participating coaltion/network will chose from within itself, > a person/persons to represent it in a nomcom > 4. Nomcoms will not be static but will be convened when needed > 5. We have a nomcom Chair but nomcom members will be chosen by their > networks to form a "nomcom of networks". Networks/coalition may decide > the method that is best suited to them to appoint qualified person/s > for the task at hand. > > What will be the merits of a "NomCom of Networks"?: > 1. Its members are sent by their constituent network/coalition > 2. Networks/coalitions can chose a NomCom person based on the > person's expertise on the subject for which CS reps are being called > for > 3. Networks/coalitions are free to use whatever methods they deem > best to select their network rep on the "Nomcom of Networks" > > In summary, we have a Nomcom of Networks non-voting Chair for 1 year, > and membership of nomcom is Networks/coalitions and not persons. Each > time there is need for CS representation then each network notifies > the Chair or their rep on the NomCom > > > Best > > Nnenna > > > On 1/20/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > A prequalification for either nomcom duties or being selected to > represent > > the caucus in some forum could be a history of prior engagement > with the > > caucus and prior track record in igov. [And to increase the > inclusion, this > > could mean engagement with multiple caucus members in good > standing on other > > civil society fora, if not necessarily this specific caucus] > > > > This prevents the sort of ballot stuffing you have noted, where > there are > > endorsements for specific individuals from random people or > groups that have > > no prior engagement with the caucus or track record on igov issues. > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > >> On 20-Jan-2014, at 12:27, "Ian Peter" > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I’m posting here some thoughts recently discussed among members > of the > >> civil society co ordination group for comments and input. It > relates to > >> some options for this group. It would be good to have comments > and input. > >> > >> What we are proposing is a period of on line discussion, after > which we > >> will probably conduct some sort of on line straw poll to get a > feeling for > >> how people think about options emerging. So please comment and > digest, and > >> we will look forward to getting wide input. > >> > >> > >> But firstly- is there a need for such a group? > >> > >> There certainly was in the context of appointing representatives for > >> Brazil and 1net, and we would argue that it is highly advisable for > >> functions such as MAG nominations. Perhaps there are no other > great needs > >> at this stage, but they might arise. And certainly a continuing > >> communication between groups working in the area of internet > governance > >> might be useful. > >> > >> The alternative to all of this re-organisation would be for the > group to > >> go into recess until another urgent need arises. But that choice > would > >> simply reinforce the criticism that exists of this group (or its > >> successors) when there is a need again - or alternatively lead to > >> fragmented selection processes that hinder civil society > representation. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 1. EXPANSION OF THE CO-ORDINATION GROUP > >> > >> This has been the subject of previous discussion with a number of > >> different parties and it was decided to defer further > considerations until > >> after Brazil nominations were complete. There was also some > discussion on > >> list here immediately before Christmas about some possible > criteria for > >> involvement. > >> > >> One possibility we would suggest here is we could decide to > enlarge the > >> group to (say) 9 -12 people. The current voting members could > remain and > >> would be joined by one of the incoming IGC Co-ordinators. For > additional > >> voting members, we suggest that we open it up to expressions of > interest – > >> but not only from organisations, but also from individuals. That > allows > >> involvement of representatives of multistakeholder groups with a > strong > >> relationship with civil society (eg IRP). That might be a good > step, and > >> to this we could add rotation of members.... or leave such > questions until > >> the co ordination group is fully populated. > >> > >> That’s the first issue where clarity is needed. But how to > select.... > >> > >> > >> 2. SELECTION PROCEDURES (possibly for expanding the co > ordination group, > >> but also for any future CS representation). > >> > >> We present three different options here. > >> > >> OPTION ONE - VOTING > >> > >> This works well within one organisation, but is more difficult with > >> multi-organisational elections – who is in for voting, who is > out? And > >> some of us remember the original ICANN at large elections, where > suddenly > >> thousands of people with no previous involvement got involved in > support > >> of one candidate who was elected with a large majority. The > context for us > >> here is that, without a consolidated membership list of all our > >> organisations, this is very open to capture and manipulation. > And setting > >> up and maintaining a multi-organisation single voting list is a > fairly > >> time consuming administrative task. (and then we need to ask which > >> organisations mailing lists and/or membership lists would be > included) > >> > >> So there are a few issues to solve if we take that direction. > >> > >> OPTION TWO – RANDOM NOMCOM > >> > >> This option has been widely used in IETF and was adopted in the > Charter of > >> IGC. We are not aware of anywhere else it is used but there may > be some > >> other examples. > >> > >> While this form is gospel to some people, others have reservations. > >> > >> Ian Peter writes, as one critic with some experience of this > >> > >> “My personal reservations arise from involvement with perhaps 9 > or so > >> random Nomcoms, with the following results: > >> > >> 2 included known trolls. > >> Only one of 9 had all members active – most worked on the basis > of only > >> one or two active members. > >> One refused to work with the appointed Chair > >> One had the Chair drop out mid process and ended up with one > individual > >> making decisions > >> Gender and geographic balance are purely left up to chance.” > >> > >> To this we would add issues involved with random selection when > >> factions/different organisations are involved. It is easy in > this case for > >> important sections of CS to be left out entirely from deliberations > >> because they weren’t randomly selected. > >> > >> So some of us caution against use of this form in the context of a > >> multi-organisational steering group, arguing that these are > important > >> matters of representation best not left to chance. > >> > >> > >> OPTION THREE – APPOINTED NOMCOM > >> > >> This is the most widely used form and is used by technical > community, > >> business community, ICANN, and just about any other organisation > we can > >> think of. It’s the safest way, providing that transparent, > accountable and > >> inclusive processes are used to select the members of the > Nomcom. That > >> would be something the coordination group mentioned above could > undertake > >> when in place. > >> > >> > >> And I am sure there are other variations. But they need to be > agreed to > >> and sorted out. > >> > >> CRITERIA > >> > >> We also need criteria for selection. Previously we discussed > these in > >> terms of determining suitable organisations who would nominate > >> representatives. But if we are looking at individuals as well, > they will > >> need to change. But for reference, the previous discussions left > these > >> under consideration > >> > >> 1. Is it a coalition which is globally representative - > all regions > >> covered? > >> > >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to > >> business)? > >> > >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, > >> business or government in its categorization? > >> > >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered > by one of > >> the existing members? > >> > >> > >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately > transparent and > >> accountable to its members. > >> > >> > >> 6. Does the coalition have a substantial current involvement in and > >> knowledge of internet governance issues > >> > >> Obviously if individuals are to be considered these have to change. > >> > >> > >> > >> Over to everyone for comments. > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 26 01:41:58 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:11:58 +0530 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI In-Reply-To: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> References: , <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Message-ID: <52E4AE36.7010503@itforchange.net> On Thursday 23 January 2014 04:28 AM, Laura Tresca wrote: > What´s the impact of this Comission over the Brazilian meeting? All What bothers me is how a new paradigm of global governance - or at least of norms-setting that converts into governance -is being set up,which is completely dominated and dictated by the North, and the powerful. ICANN sets a high profile panel on global IG, and now we have this Northern governments driven initiative. Such initiatives will shape what is Internet governance, its essential vocabulary and paradigms. For instance, here we see talk of Internet freedom and Internet security but not things like Internet equality and Internet justice... Who will frame and articulate such latter ideas and concerns? Civil society which should be doing it has been conveniently co-opted, and handed over rattle toys like the slogans of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism, which is seems to rather pleased to keep shaking and hearing its wonderful sounds. The purpose of the commission is clear in this part of the announcement "The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack". Not a word about the injustices and illegitimacies of the current models. This is an effort by the powerful to put back on course a ship rocked by Snowden et el. And to do it this time in a much more elaborate and sophisticated manner, so that it takes another couple of decades for anyone to figure out a good articulate response to it.... The announcement of the commission also says that "The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time". Sure! But you should hear the same actors, who drive this commission, inside US spaces. like to the WG on enhanced cooperation. They seem utterly unconvinced that there are any important global public policy issues related to the Internet at all.And this needless discussion has taken up most of the time of the WG, rather than talk about the real issue of how should we democratically deal with the existing and emergent public policy issues. You would expect civil society to expose such hypocrisy, but then.... Decades of post-colonial gains and victories towards more just and democratic global frameworks are being allowed to erode rapidly in the IG space. Pity is that civil society has mostly not stood up to these losses. It has mostly allowed itself to be hoodwinked with facile and misguiding arguments like 'access is more important' or 'a China or Iran will take over the global Internet' while some global superpowers actually take over the Internet as means of global domination - economic, political, social and cultural. The civil society involved in global IG has simply had no response to this enormity. It has mostly agreed to be easily co-opted and go along merrily reciting the slogans manufactured for it by the powerful. In his writings about participatory democracy (which is want is needed, not some kind of compromised multistakeholderism), John Gaventa theorises about 'invited spaces' and 'invented spaces' .... While participating in 'invited spaces' may sometimes (only sometimes) be usefultactically, what is really needed is for progressive civil society to 'invent' its spaces of engagement, at its own terms, and not those of the powerful, whose power is what is required to be confronted... Participating in this commission etc is to agree to engage on the terms of 'those powerful'. As framing of global IG's basic ideas and norms, and the needed action, moves firmly towards the World Economic Forum (both, this commission and the ICANN panel), the big question is - who would provide the resistances and counter action against the complete capture of the agenda by the globe's most powerful.... Who would pull things towards, say, the World Social Forum. Or are we happy to take the cushy rides that are offered to us, holding high their compromised slogans, developed specifically for civil society 'friends'..... Inter alia, do we realise what it means to abandon the UN (that evil force!) and take a happy ride to Davos.... The question is not just whether the UN is bad... Yes it is in many ways, and we need to constantly try and improve global democracy... The question is, whether Davos is a better destination? Because that is where everything global IG seems to be headed now. A last comment: There is an extra- ordinarily huge amount of funds suddenly thrown into the global IG space by Northern powers. Announcements of new initiatives, including research and advocacy programs, seem to appear almost by the day... Such sudden, often/ mostly motivated, funding can reconfigure 'civil society' which IMHO it is indeed doing right now. However, a lot of people here would not want us to talk about such matters, and what this means to real civil soicety concerns, and how the space may be being captured... parminder > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 > www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > ________________________________ > De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Nnenna Nwakanma [nnenna75 at gmail.com] > Enviado: quarta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2014 14:37 > Para: Governance; > Assunto: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI > > FYI > === > > CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance, chaired by Sweden’s Carl Bildt > > Davos-Klosters, Switzerland – January 22, 2014 – Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). > > Announced today at the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, the Global Commission is a two-year initiative that will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. > > “In most countries, increased attention is being given to all the issues of net freedom, net security and net governance. And they are, in my view, closely related to each other. The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies.” > > The commission will include about 25 members drawn from various fields and from around the world, including policy and government, academia and civil society. > > The Global Commission on Internet Governance will encourage globally inclusive public discussions and debates on the future of Internet governance through a public consultation platform, and through other institutional, media, and academic channels. It will create and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance that can act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet. > > The commission will focus on four key themes: > > • Enhancing governance legitimacy; > • Stimulating innovation; > • Ensuring human rights online; > • Avoiding systemic risks. > “The work of this vitally important undertaking will be supported by a highly innovative research program at both CIGI and Chatham House as well as widespread stakeholder consultations with civil society and the private sector. The Commission’s work is also intended to build on a number of important strategic dialogues that are already underway and to feed into ongoing policy discussions at the global level,” said Fen Osler Hampson, Director of the Global Security & Politics Program at CIGI. > > “The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time. The Commission will work to develop ideas and propose a policy framework that enhances the legitimacy of Internet governance whilst preserving innovation. Chatham House is honoured to partner with Foreign Minister Bildt and CIGI in the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Dr. Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House. > > Members of the commission currently include the following, with full biographies available at www.ourinternet.org: > > • Carl Bildt, Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Gordon Smith, Deputy Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Dominic Barton > • Pablo Bello > • Dae-Whan Chang > • Moez Chatchouk > • Michael Chertoff > • Anriette Esterhuysen > • Hartmut Glaser > • Dorothy Gordon > • Dame Wendy Hall > • Fen Osler Hampson > • Melissa Hathaway > • Patricia Lewis > • Mathias Müller von Blumencron > • Beth Simone Noveck > • Joseph S. Nye > • Sir David Omand > • Nii Quaynor > • Latha Reddy > • Marietje Schaake > • Tobby Simon > • Michael Spence > • Paul Twomey > • Pindar Wong > “For many people, Internet governance sounds technical and esoteric, but the reality is that the issues are ‘high politics’ and of consequences to all users of the Internet, present and future,” said CIGI Distinguished Fellow Gordon Smith, who is deputy chair of the new commission. > > “Internet governance is too important to be left just to governments. The Internet is a fundamental part of the global economy and how we manage its future will be decisive in facilitating development for all. Finding a way through the issues of access, privacy, security, protection and surveillance requires in-depth consideration and the wisdom that the Global Commission will provide,” said Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security Department, Chatham House. > > Among those supporting the commission’s work will be CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, who will act as its Director of Research. Additional commission members will be confirmed over time. > > For more information on the Global Commission on Internet Governance, please visit: www.ourinternet.org. Follow the commission on twitter @OurInternetGCIG. > === > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 26 02:22:49 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:52:49 +0530 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI In-Reply-To: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> References: , <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Message-ID: <52E4B7C9.4090404@itforchange.net> On Thursday 23 January 2014 04:28 AM, Laura Tresca wrote: > What´s the impact of this Comission over the Brazilian meeting? Laura Since you question is specifically about the impact on Brazil meeting... I think this is a part of a pincer attack, for dominating the global IG space (along with initiatives like the ICANN high level panel), lest relatively more neutral venues like the Brazil meeting, or more democratic platforms like the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, do anything to spoil the party.... And of course 'they' are powerful enough to work from within as well - as ICANN did quite well, suddenly, and rather unexpectedly, to capture the co-ownership of the Brazil meeting.... One can see, how powerful some parties are, and how extremely strategic and well funded their overall effort.... Civil society which is supposed to look after excluded interests too seems rather happy to go along, and I think its (or rather its leadership's) acts of omission and commission in the shaping of an appropriate role and independence of civil society Brazil meeting have been rather disappointing.. I do however still have a lot of hope from the Brazilian meeting. I expect the Brazilians to re-group quickly and take stock that they called this meeting as coming from the rather impressive speech of their President at the UN, and not just a place for secret deal making among the powerful. My organisation and networks that we work with seek to engage with the Brazilian meeting in this background, and with this hope.. parminder > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 > www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > ________________________________ > De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Nnenna Nwakanma [nnenna75 at gmail.com] > Enviado: quarta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2014 14:37 > Para: Governance; > Assunto: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI > > FYI > === > > CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance, chaired by Sweden’s Carl Bildt > > Davos-Klosters, Switzerland – January 22, 2014 – Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). > > Announced today at the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, the Global Commission is a two-year initiative that will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. > > “In most countries, increased attention is being given to all the issues of net freedom, net security and net governance. And they are, in my view, closely related to each other. The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies.” > > The commission will include about 25 members drawn from various fields and from around the world, including policy and government, academia and civil society. > > The Global Commission on Internet Governance will encourage globally inclusive public discussions and debates on the future of Internet governance through a public consultation platform, and through other institutional, media, and academic channels. It will create and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance that can act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet. > > The commission will focus on four key themes: > > • Enhancing governance legitimacy; > • Stimulating innovation; > • Ensuring human rights online; > • Avoiding systemic risks. > “The work of this vitally important undertaking will be supported by a highly innovative research program at both CIGI and Chatham House as well as widespread stakeholder consultations with civil society and the private sector. The Commission’s work is also intended to build on a number of important strategic dialogues that are already underway and to feed into ongoing policy discussions at the global level,” said Fen Osler Hampson, Director of the Global Security & Politics Program at CIGI. > > “The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time. The Commission will work to develop ideas and propose a policy framework that enhances the legitimacy of Internet governance whilst preserving innovation. Chatham House is honoured to partner with Foreign Minister Bildt and CIGI in the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Dr. Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House. > > Members of the commission currently include the following, with full biographies available at www.ourinternet.org: > > • Carl Bildt, Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Gordon Smith, Deputy Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Dominic Barton > • Pablo Bello > • Dae-Whan Chang > • Moez Chatchouk > • Michael Chertoff > • Anriette Esterhuysen > • Hartmut Glaser > • Dorothy Gordon > • Dame Wendy Hall > • Fen Osler Hampson > • Melissa Hathaway > • Patricia Lewis > • Mathias Müller von Blumencron > • Beth Simone Noveck > • Joseph S. Nye > • Sir David Omand > • Nii Quaynor > • Latha Reddy > • Marietje Schaake > • Tobby Simon > • Michael Spence > • Paul Twomey > • Pindar Wong > “For many people, Internet governance sounds technical and esoteric, but the reality is that the issues are ‘high politics’ and of consequences to all users of the Internet, present and future,” said CIGI Distinguished Fellow Gordon Smith, who is deputy chair of the new commission. > > “Internet governance is too important to be left just to governments. The Internet is a fundamental part of the global economy and how we manage its future will be decisive in facilitating development for all. Finding a way through the issues of access, privacy, security, protection and surveillance requires in-depth consideration and the wisdom that the Global Commission will provide,” said Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security Department, Chatham House. > > Among those supporting the commission’s work will be CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, who will act as its Director of Research. Additional commission members will be confirmed over time. > > For more information on the Global Commission on Internet Governance, please visit: www.ourinternet.org. Follow the commission on twitter @OurInternetGCIG. > === > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 26 08:25:58 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:25:58 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Marilia Hi everyone... Any comments on Marilia's email? If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how seats might be allocated? The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil local time). Adam On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > - Meeting agenda > > - Meeting format > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > - Public consultation > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > Best > > Marília > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > Joana, thanks so much. > > Adding in a few more : > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this WG propose how to summarize submissions? > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public free access? > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be given priority? > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joana Varon > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > To: ; ; > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > before 27th meeting > > > > Dear all, > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different interactions with different lists: > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who gets invited? > * There will be travel support? > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also be invited? What are the restrictions? > * There will be remote participation? > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of Brazilian Carnival) > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, by Friday at the most. > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support of other stakeholder groups. > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > best > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 26 08:31:46 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:31:46 -0200 Subject: RES: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI In-Reply-To: <52E4AE36.7010503@itforchange.net> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4A14A@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <52E4AE36.7010503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:41 AM, parminder wrote: > For instance, here we see talk of Internet freedom and Internet security > but not things like Internet equality and Internet justice... Who will > frame and articulate such latter ideas and concerns? > This is true. An agenda articulated with inputs from developing regions would include other points as well. I wonder if they realize how self-centered this announcement sounds to the ears of many people in the world... > > The purpose of the commission is clear in this part of the announcement "The > rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible > model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is > coming under attack". Not a word about the injustices and illegitimacies of > the current models. This is an effort by the powerful to put back on course > a ship rocked by Snowden et el. > Yes, this language stroke me in the first reading. It is reactive, reactionist and pro what they must believe is a perfect status quo. This passage is particularly interesting "But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated". It is like he is implying that people are "using" the agenda anti-surveillance, for instance, to attack the present model. We probably should push surveillance under the rug to avoid causing inconveniences... By the way, another thing that concerns me is that this language of "coming under attack" is becoming very frequent, not only in debates about governance, but also about (national) security. The idea of a cyber arms race is being sold, little by little. > > A last comment: There is an extra- ordinarily huge amount of funds > suddenly thrown into the global IG Such sudden, often/ mostly motivated, > funding can reconfigure 'civil society' which IMHO it is indeed doing right > now. However, a lot of people here would not want us to talk about such > matters, and what this means to real civil soicety concerns, and how the > space may be being captured... > This is an important observation and should be a real concern. Marília > > parminder > > > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > ________________________________ > De: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] em nome de Nnenna Nwakanma [nnenna75 at gmail.com] > Enviado: quarta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2014 14:37 > Para: Governance; > Assunto: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance - FYI > > FYI > === > > CIGI and Chatham House launch Global Commission on Internet Governance, chaired by Sweden’s Carl Bildt > > Davos-Klosters, Switzerland – January 22, 2014 – Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). > > Announced today at the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, the Global Commission is a two-year initiative that will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. > > “In most countries, increased attention is being given to all the issues of net freedom, net security and net governance. And they are, in my view, closely related to each other. The rapid evolution of the net has been made possible by the open and flexible model by which it has evolved and been governed. But increasingly this is coming under attack,” said Carl Bildt. “And this is happening as issues of net freedom, net security and net surveillance are increasingly debated. Net freedom is as fundamental as freedom of information and freedom of speech in our societies.” > > The commission will include about 25 members drawn from various fields and from around the world, including policy and government, academia and civil society. > > The Global Commission on Internet Governance will encourage globally inclusive public discussions and debates on the future of Internet governance through a public consultation platform, and through other institutional, media, and academic channels. It will create and advance a strategic vision for the future of Internet governance that can act as a rallying point for states that are striving for a continued free and open Internet. > > The commission will focus on four key themes: > > • Enhancing governance legitimacy; > • Stimulating innovation; > • Ensuring human rights online; > • Avoiding systemic risks. > “The work of this vitally important undertaking will be supported by a highly innovative research program at both CIGI and Chatham House as well as widespread stakeholder consultations with civil society and the private sector. The Commission’s work is also intended to build on a number of important strategic dialogues that are already underway and to feed into ongoing policy discussions at the global level,” said Fen Osler Hampson, Director of the Global Security & Politics Program at CIGI. > > “The issue of Internet governance is set to become one of the most pressing global public policy issues of our time. The Commission will work to develop ideas and propose a policy framework that enhances the legitimacy of Internet governance whilst preserving innovation. Chatham House is honoured to partner with Foreign Minister Bildt and CIGI in the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Dr. Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House. > > Members of the commission currently include the following, with full biographies available at www.ourinternet.org : > > • Carl Bildt, Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Gordon Smith, Deputy Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance > • Dominic Barton > • Pablo Bello > • Dae-Whan Chang > • Moez Chatchouk > • Michael Chertoff > • Anriette Esterhuysen > • Hartmut Glaser > • Dorothy Gordon > • Dame Wendy Hall > • Fen Osler Hampson > • Melissa Hathaway > • Patricia Lewis > • Mathias Müller von Blumencron > • Beth Simone Noveck > • Joseph S. Nye > • Sir David Omand > • Nii Quaynor > • Latha Reddy > • Marietje Schaake > • Tobby Simon > • Michael Spence > • Paul Twomey > • Pindar Wong > “For many people, Internet governance sounds technical and esoteric, but the reality is that the issues are ‘high politics’ and of consequences to all users of the Internet, present and future,” said CIGI Distinguished Fellow Gordon Smith, who is deputy chair of the new commission. > > “Internet governance is too important to be left just to governments. The Internet is a fundamental part of the global economy and how we manage its future will be decisive in facilitating development for all. Finding a way through the issues of access, privacy, security, protection and surveillance requires in-depth consideration and the wisdom that the Global Commission will provide,” said Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security Department, Chatham House. > > Among those supporting the commission’s work will be CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, who will act as its Director of Research. Additional commission members will be confirmed over time. > > For more information on the Global Commission on Internet Governance, please visit: www.ourinternet.org . Follow the commission on twitter @OurInternetGCIG. > === > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing listdiscuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Jan 26 08:40:04 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:40:04 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam, Marillia and all I would like to throw in 2 more questions. 1. Can we have a Day 0? For organisations that may want to have a preparatory event? 2. Will there be a space for exhibition, demos? Thanks N On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Marilia > > Hi everyone... > > Any comments on Marilia's email? > > If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how > seats might be allocated? > > The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. > Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? > > Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil > local time). > > Adam > > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the > executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the > topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > > > - Meeting agenda > > > > - Meeting format > > > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > > > - Public consultation > > > > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further > explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address > them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > > > > Best > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade > wrote: > > Joana, thanks so much. > > > > Adding in a few more : > > > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this > WG propose how to summarize submissions? > > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public > free access? > > > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be > given priority? > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joana Varon > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > > To: ; ; < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > > before 27th meeting > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a > set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in > order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different > interactions with different lists: > > > > > > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who > gets invited? > > * There will be travel support? > > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also > be invited? What are the restrictions? > > * There will be remote participation? > > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle > of Brazilian Carnival) > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe > others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our > actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to > logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, > by Friday at the most. > > > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be > attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support > of other stakeholder groups. > > > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also > reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or > more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their > constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > > > > best > > > > joana > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Marília Maciel > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Jan 26 08:42:23 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:42:23 -0200 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam, Thanks for this. A less complicated question, but also important, that was also delivered to me is that if there will be any support for visas. (I shall remember you that Brazil operates under reciprocity logic, so every country that requires a visa to Brazilians will be required too. For instance: USA). About numbers, being realistic and perhaps polemical, if the event is planed for around 1000 people. There are about 196 countries in the world, 193 UN member states. Not all will attend. If we have 4 stakeholders, I would say that around 150-200 seats for civil society would be an interesting number to evaluate. There might be many problems behind this math... but just starting to give it a try. Best Joana On 26 Jan 2014 11:26, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Thanks Marilia > > Hi everyone... > > Any comments on Marilia's email? > > If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how > seats might be allocated? > > The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. > Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? > > Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil > local time). > > Adam > > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the > executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the > topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > > > - Meeting agenda > > > > - Meeting format > > > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > > > - Public consultation > > > > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further > explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address > them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > > > > Best > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade > wrote: > > Joana, thanks so much. > > > > Adding in a few more : > > > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this > WG propose how to summarize submissions? > > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public > free access? > > > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be > given priority? > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joana Varon > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > > To: ; ; < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > > before 27th meeting > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a > set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in > order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different > interactions with different lists: > > > > > > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who > gets invited? > > * There will be travel support? > > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also > be invited? What are the restrictions? > > * There will be remote participation? > > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle > of Brazilian Carnival) > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe > others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our > actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to > logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, > by Friday at the most. > > > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be > attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support > of other stakeholder groups. > > > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also > reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or > more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their > constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > > > > best > > > > joana > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Marília Maciel > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jan 26 09:05:33 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 23:05:33 +0900 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Joana, Visas: the logistics team is supported by Nick Tomasso, ICANN -- he has a lot of experience and should have a pretty good idea of our needs. But will mention visas as they are always a hassle. Numbers will be "interesting". Adam On Jan 26, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for this. > > A less complicated question, but also important, that was also delivered to me is that if there will be any support for visas. (I shall remember you that Brazil operates under reciprocity logic, so every country that requires a visa to Brazilians will be required too. For instance: USA). > > About numbers, being realistic and perhaps polemical, if the event is planed for around 1000 people. There are about 196 countries in the world, 193 UN member states. Not all will attend. If we have 4 stakeholders, I would say that around 150-200 seats for civil society would be an interesting number to evaluate. There might be many problems behind this math... but just starting to give it a try. > > Best > > Joana > > On 26 Jan 2014 11:26, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Thanks Marilia > > Hi everyone... > > Any comments on Marilia's email? > > If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how seats might be allocated? > > The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? > > Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil local time). > > Adam > > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > > > - Meeting agenda > > > > - Meeting format > > > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > > > - Public consultation > > > > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > > > > Best > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > > Joana, thanks so much. > > > > Adding in a few more : > > > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this WG propose how to summarize submissions? > > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public free access? > > > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be given priority? > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joana Varon > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > > To: ; ; > > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > > before 27th meeting > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different interactions with different lists: > > > > > > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who gets invited? > > * There will be travel support? > > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also be invited? What are the restrictions? > > * There will be remote participation? > > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of Brazilian Carnival) > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, by Friday at the most. > > > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support of other stakeholder groups. > > > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > > > > best > > > > joana > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Marília Maciel > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 26 09:59:47 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 12:59:47 -0200 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Joana and Nnenna, these are very good points. Thanks for starting to share ideas about participation in the event. According to the map Adam sent, the maximum capacity of the auditorium seems to be 1.500, but I imagine we need to save room for ground staff as well. Regardless of the exact number, which I think we will know for sure tomorrow, my impression is that in general people seem to be ok with a fixed number of participants per stakeholder group. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. - First come first served. People who register would be accepted until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and developed regions, presenting contributions to the public consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the above. Regarding format on the meeting and taking into account that we will have about 10h of actual work (there is lunch, there is opening session, etc), do you think we should have two separate tracks working in parallel (one for each agenda issue)? Would that optimize our time? Thanks for the inputs. Marília On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Joana, > > Visas: the logistics team is supported by Nick Tomasso, ICANN -- he has a > lot of experience and should have a pretty good idea of our needs. But > will mention visas as they are always a hassle. > > Numbers will be "interesting". < > http://www.transamerica.com.br/en/saopaulo/eventos/salas-e-capacidades.aspx > > > > Adam > > > On Jan 26, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Thanks for this. > > > > A less complicated question, but also important, that was also delivered > to me is that if there will be any support for visas. (I shall remember you > that Brazil operates under reciprocity logic, so every country that > requires a visa to Brazilians will be required too. For instance: USA). > > > > About numbers, being realistic and perhaps polemical, if the event is > planed for around 1000 people. There are about 196 countries in the world, > 193 UN member states. Not all will attend. If we have 4 stakeholders, I > would say that around 150-200 seats for civil society would be an > interesting number to evaluate. There might be many problems behind this > math... but just starting to give it a try. > > > > Best > > > > Joana > > > > On 26 Jan 2014 11:26, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > Thanks Marilia > > > > Hi everyone... > > > > Any comments on Marilia's email? > > > > If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how > seats might be allocated? > > > > The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. > Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? > > > > Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil > local time). > > > > Adam > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the > executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the > topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > > > > > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > > > > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > > > > > - Meeting agenda > > > > > > - Meeting format > > > > > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > > > > > - Public consultation > > > > > > > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further > explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address > them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade < > marilynscade at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Joana, thanks so much. > > > > > > Adding in a few more : > > > > > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this > WG propose how to summarize submissions? > > > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public > free access? > > > > > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be > given priority? > > > > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joana Varon > > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > > > To: ; ; < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to > LOC > > > before 27th meeting > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a > set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in > order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different > interactions with different lists: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > > > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides > who gets invited? > > > * There will be travel support? > > > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can > also be invited? What are the restrictions? > > > * There will be remote participation? > > > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > > > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle > of Brazilian Carnival) > > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe > others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our > actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to > logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, > by Friday at the most. > > > > > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be > attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support > of other stakeholder groups. > > > > > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could > also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these > (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their > constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > > > > > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > > > > > > > best > > > > > > joana > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > > @joana_varon > > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Marília Maciel > > > Pesquisadora Gestora > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Researcher and Coordinator > > > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > > > DiploFoundation associate > > > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jan 7 11:47:56 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:17:56 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bdiscuss=5D_Meeting_in_S=E3o_Pa?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_and_1N?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?et?= In-Reply-To: <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: <52CC2FBC.9040804@itforchange.net> Dear Hartmut, Thanks for the clarification. I request a further clarification. What is this 1Net that you are having this privileged discussion about organising the Brazil meeting with? I am on the 1Net's own list where I am told that 1Net is yet nothing other than what the yet to be constituted steering committee of the 1Net will decide it to be. However, LOG seems to have a very clear and strong view of the 1Net, to plan an exclusive discussion with it, quoting your email below " to sort out relevant details related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's committees". (At least tell us, who is that you discuss things with when you say you discuss something with 1Net?) I understand that the enclosed letter signed by key civil society organisations was handed over to LOG long back, where civil society groups say very clearly that they will like to directly deal with LOG (and, although the letter was polite enough not to use the name, the contextual meaning clearly was, "not be dealt with through the 1Net"). It also put forward its interim Liaisons, with a specific request that they be invited to every meeting in relation to organising the Brazil meeting. In the circumstances, I request clarification why this request of major civil society networks was entirely ignored, and the yet (supposedly) unclear and undefined 1Net is being given this extremely privileged position. We have no problem with whoever else LOG deals with, but if civil society groups asked to be dealt with directly, and in a certain well-described way, it would have been best if that request was acceded to. The least that is required is to be informed why is it not being acceded to. Thanks, and wishing you the best in the very important and intense work that you and LOG are involved with. parminder On Tuesday 07 January 2014 09:41 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > _*URGENT INFORMATION*__*/CLARIFICATION*_ > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > > _This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's__ __process,_ since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Joint civil society letter Brazil Meeting.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 134978 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 26 10:26:57 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:26:57 +0100 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Marilia Maciel wrote: > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: > > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. > > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the > above. APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. I support that proposal. Greetings, Norbert From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 26 10:35:24 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:35:24 -0200 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be useful. Best Marília On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally > > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected > > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please > > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: > > > > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some > > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. > > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted > > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. > > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance > > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on > > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and > > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public > > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have > > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria > > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. > > > > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the > > above. > > APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the > basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. > > I support that proposal. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Jan 26 10:55:27 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:55:27 +0100 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: <52E52FEF.10004@wzb.eu> Judging from what I see particularly on the 1net and the IGC but to some degree also the bestbits list, the majority of the partcipants selected on that basis will be male. What is more, the number of participants will be rather small. Proabably less than 50 or so. Is substantive participation really a sound selection criteria? Or are we talking about contributions elsewhere? If that is the case, how are we going to assess substantive participation? I think such a criteria only makes sense in combination with other ones. First we should try to find out how many people actually plan to go to Sao Paulo. jeanette Am 26.01.14 16:26, schrieb Norbert Bollow: > Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally >> tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >> so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >> propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >> >> - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >> fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >> - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >> until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >> Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >> - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >> previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >> developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >> consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >> attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >> is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >> >> Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >> above. > > APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the > basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. > > I support that proposal. > > Greetings, > Norbert > From nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Jan 26 11:23:42 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:23:42 +0000 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, one being contribution during the prep process. However, there is one thing that needs to be checked ** the size of government delegations*** How many people can be in an official delegation? Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS folks to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. So the question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an official delegation?" N On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older threads > in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please link > them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be useful. > Best > Marília > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally >> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >> > >> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >> > >> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >> > above. >> >> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >> >> I support that proposal. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Jan 26 13:08:37 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:08:37 -0200 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Very good point, Nnenna. Dear all, for the record, in the sense of using all the paths we have, Adiel has just transmitted to the co-chairs of the EMC, Demi and Raul, the sets of questions we have compiled. So Marilia and Adam can have more support to push them as urgent matters as well. For the very tricky ones, I would suggest to bring a set of options to consult with the stakeholders. All the best and I wish you both, Adam and Marilia, a very inspired meeting Best Joana On 26 Jan 2014 14:24, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: > I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, one > being contribution during the prep process. > However, there is one thing that needs to be checked > ** the size of government delegations*** > > How many people can be in an official delegation? > > Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS folks > to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. So the > question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an official > delegation?" > > N > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older >> threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please >> link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be >> useful. >> Best >> Marília >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally >>> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >>> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >>> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >>> > >>> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >>> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >>> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >>> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >>> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >>> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >>> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >>> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >>> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >>> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >>> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >>> > >>> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >>> > above. >>> >>> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >>> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >>> >>> I support that proposal. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Jan 26 14:09:43 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:09:43 -0200 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Please read "Transmitted on behalf of 1net steering" On 26 Jan 2014 16:08, "Joana Varon" wrote: > Very good point, Nnenna. > > Dear all, for the record, in the sense of using all the paths we have, > Adiel has just transmitted to the co-chairs of the EMC, Demi and Raul, the > sets of questions we have compiled. So Marilia and Adam can have more > support to push them as urgent matters as well. > > For the very tricky ones, I would suggest to bring a set of options to > consult with the stakeholders. > > All the best and I wish you both, Adam and Marilia, a very inspired meeting > > Best > > Joana > On 26 Jan 2014 14:24, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: > >> I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, one >> being contribution during the prep process. >> However, there is one thing that needs to be checked >> ** the size of government delegations*** >> >> How many people can be in an official delegation? >> >> Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS folks >> to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. So the >> question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an official >> delegation?" >> >> N >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older >>> threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please >>> link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be >>> useful. >>> Best >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> >>>> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally >>>> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >>>> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >>>> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >>>> > >>>> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >>>> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >>>> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >>>> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >>>> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >>>> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >>>> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >>>> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >>>> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >>>> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >>>> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >>>> > >>>> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >>>> > above. >>>> >>>> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >>>> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >>>> >>>> I support that proposal. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Marília Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sun Jan 26 22:31:37 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:01:37 +0530 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Dear all, On the numbers issue, what I have found intriguing is that there is a felt need to actually put cut-off points for number of participants for each stakeholder group in place, while 1500 is actually slightly more than the number of people who usually attend an IGF (without any cut offs being put into place)? Is this in an attempt to crack up government participation? (And perhaps Adam or someone else in the know can remind us of how big a percentage of IGF participants comes from governments - I tried to find that info on the IGF website but didn't manage to locate it) Before agreeing to any quotas, I think it would be good to have a bit more of a sense of the rationale. Thanks and good luck with the meeting, Marilia and Adam! Anja On 27 January 2014 00:39, Joana Varon wrote: > Please read "Transmitted on behalf of 1net steering" > On 26 Jan 2014 16:08, "Joana Varon" wrote: > >> Very good point, Nnenna. >> >> Dear all, for the record, in the sense of using all the paths we have, >> Adiel has just transmitted to the co-chairs of the EMC, Demi and Raul, the >> sets of questions we have compiled. So Marilia and Adam can have more >> support to push them as urgent matters as well. >> >> For the very tricky ones, I would suggest to bring a set of options to >> consult with the stakeholders. >> >> All the best and I wish you both, Adam and Marilia, a very inspired >> meeting >> >> Best >> >> Joana >> On 26 Jan 2014 14:24, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: >> >>> I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, one >>> being contribution during the prep process. >>> However, there is one thing that needs to be checked >>> ** the size of government delegations*** >>> >>> How many people can be in an official delegation? >>> >>> Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS folks >>> to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. So the >>> question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an official >>> delegation?" >>> >>> N >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older >>>> threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please >>>> link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be >>>> useful. >>>> Best >>>> Marília >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>>> Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have >>>>> informally >>>>> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >>>>> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >>>>> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >>>>> > >>>>> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >>>>> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >>>>> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >>>>> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >>>>> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >>>>> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >>>>> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >>>>> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >>>>> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >>>>> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >>>>> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >>>>> > >>>>> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >>>>> > above. >>>>> >>>>> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >>>>> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >>>>> >>>>> I support that proposal. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Marília Maciel* >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>> >>>> Researcher and Coordinator >>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate >>>> www.diplomacy.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Jan 27 02:37:44 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:37:44 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Evaluation of IGF2013 Message-ID: <6790313A-8989-47F8-B1DF-D176ACADB24A@glocom.ac.jp> From the IGF website: "All stakeholders are encouraged to to assist the IGF self-evaluating itself and improving each year. To this effect, they are called on to fill in the overall evaluation survey as well as the workshop evaluation form." The link is https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XV29SVS There's no deadline, but sooner the better as it will help the secretariat summarize comments. Questions in the survey below, just for information, it's an online survey. Adam 1. What worked well at IGF 2013? What worked less well? 2. What are the lessons learned from IGF 2013 to improve the IGF 2014? 3. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of IGF 2013 4. Can you think of alternative session formats that would bring an added value to the IGF? 5. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of IGF 2013 Newcomers to the IGF If you were not a newcomer to the IGF, please go to the next page. Thank you. 6. Did you attend the Orientation Sessions? Why/why not? 7. What was the most challenging thing for you during IGF 2013? What would you recommend to help newcomers navigate the meeting? 8. How could the IGF, according to you, be more attractive and relevant? How could the IGF, according to you, be more attractive and relevant? 9. Are there particular broad subjects that you think future IGF meetings should address? Are there particular broad subjects that you think future IGF meetings should address? 10. Do you plan to organize a workshop or another session at a future IGF? Why? From renata at webfoundation.org Mon Jan 27 04:37:34 2014 From: renata at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 15:07:34 +0530 Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [bestbits] Re: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: <20140126162657.0150c2ea@quill> Message-ID: Hello everyone. I strongly suggest a quota approach. Geographical - gender - minorities representation is necessary. For instance, the UK Gov already announced they are sending a huge delegation. We need balance and visibility of the global south. Not all regions and groups are well represented in the current "created" spaces. I see the Brazilian meeting as a key opportunity of participation. We should aim to break silos and connect IG with other ongoing political struggles. Ample and meaningful participation beyond the IG frequent travelers club is urgently needed to revitalize the space. Renata On 26 Jan 2014 22:08, "Joana Varon" wrote: > Very good point, Nnenna. > > Dear all, for the record, in the sense of using all the paths we have, > Adiel has just transmitted to the co-chairs of the EMC, Demi and Raul, the > sets of questions we have compiled. So Marilia and Adam can have more > support to push them as urgent matters as well. > > For the very tricky ones, I would suggest to bring a set of options to > consult with the stakeholders. > > All the best and I wish you both, Adam and Marilia, a very inspired meeting > > Best > > Joana > On 26 Jan 2014 14:24, "Nnenna Nwakanma" wrote: > >> I will tend to lean on a committee using an agreed set of criteria, one >> being contribution during the prep process. >> However, there is one thing that needs to be checked >> ** the size of government delegations*** >> >> How many people can be in an official delegation? >> >> Over the years, the IGF has been encouraging governments to add CS folks >> to their delegations, and not many countries have been doing that. So the >> question here will be : "What will be the maximum size of an official >> delegation?" >> >> N >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >>> Thanks for that Norbert. And if anyone feels that there were older >>> threads in our lists that were important to this present discussion, please >>> link them here, or resend them. I am trying to map, but any help would be >>> useful. >>> Best >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>> >>>> > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally >>>> > tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected >>>> > so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please >>>> > propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: >>>> > >>>> > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some >>>> > fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. >>>> > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted >>>> > until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. >>>> > Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance >>>> > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on >>>> > previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and >>>> > developed regions, presenting contributions to the public >>>> > consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have >>>> > attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria >>>> > is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. >>>> > >>>> > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the >>>> > above. >>>> >>>> APC has proposed that the selection of participants should be on the >>>> basis of contributing substantively during the preparatory process. >>>> >>>> I support that proposal. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Marília Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Jan 27 06:03:03 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:03:03 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: list of important questions to be delivered to LOC before 27th meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <628C4ABB-F288-4370-B183-DF1B784EC3DF@gmail.com> Hi Could we please drop ncuc-discuss from the Cc, as it’s really an external discussion and many of the folks replying are not ncuc members so the list moderator has to keep asking me whether to approve etc. Thanks Bill On Jan 26, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear Joana and Nnenna, these are very good points. > > Thanks for starting to share ideas about participation in the event. According to the map Adam sent, the maximum capacity of the auditorium seems to be 1.500, but I imagine we need to save room for ground staff as well. Regardless of the exact number, which I think we will know for sure tomorrow, my impression is that in general people seem to be ok with a fixed number of participants per stakeholder group. Please, correct me if I am wrong. > > Next step would be the question of selection. So far I have informally tried to reach out to people and ask opinions. What I have collected so far comes down to three options. But there may be more, so please propose new ideas or comment on the ones below: > > - Bottom up self-selection process. Pro: more legitimacy. Con: some fear the burden would be too heavy for a nom-com. > - First come first served. People who register would be accepted until the number of participants is reached. Pro: easier to handle. Con: some fear it could create distortions and lack of balance > - Selection by a committee (not clear by which one), based on previously agreed criteria such as: balance between developind and developed regions, presenting contributions to the public consultation as pre-condition for on site participation, have attended at least 3 IGFs, etc. Pro: Middle-terms solution if criteria is agreed beforehand. Con: Not mentioned. > > Please, let me know if you have feelings or preferences about the above. > > Regarding format on the meeting and taking into account that we will have about 10h of actual work (there is lunch, there is opening session, etc), do you think we should have two separate tracks working in parallel (one for each agenda issue)? Would that optimize our time? > > Thanks for the inputs. > Marília > > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Joana, > > Visas: the logistics team is supported by Nick Tomasso, ICANN -- he has a lot of experience and should have a pretty good idea of our needs. But will mention visas as they are always a hassle. > > Numbers will be "interesting". > > Adam > > > On Jan 26, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Thanks for this. > > > > A less complicated question, but also important, that was also delivered to me is that if there will be any support for visas. (I shall remember you that Brazil operates under reciprocity logic, so every country that requires a visa to Brazilians will be required too. For instance: USA). > > > > About numbers, being realistic and perhaps polemical, if the event is planed for around 1000 people. There are about 196 countries in the world, 193 UN member states. Not all will attend. If we have 4 stakeholders, I would say that around 150-200 seats for civil society would be an interesting number to evaluate. There might be many problems behind this math... but just starting to give it a try. > > > > Best > > > > Joana > > > > On 26 Jan 2014 11:26, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > Thanks Marilia > > > > Hi everyone... > > > > Any comments on Marilia's email? > > > > If the number who can attend in person is limited, any thoughts on how seats might be allocated? > > > > The organizing group are committed to remote access, we've heard that. Any thoughts no how to integrate remote participation? > > > > Will report after tomorrow's meeting (Monday 27th, 09:00 - 17:00 Brazil local time). > > > > Adam > > > > > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > These are very good questions.The agenda for the meeting of the executive committee on the 27th is not yet defined. As it stands today, the topics on the agenda will likely be: > > > > > > > > > - Committee work plan (roadmap) > > > > > > - Participation criteria for the meeting > > > > > > - Meeting agenda > > > > > > - Meeting format > > > > > > - Kind of expected outcomes > > > > > > - Public consultation > > > > > > > > > As you can see, topics are broad. If there are questions to further explore these points or if there are concrete proposals on how to address them, Adam and I would be happy to channel ideas into the meeting. > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote: > > > Joana, thanks so much. > > > > > > Adding in a few more : > > > > > > As documents are invited, w. A cut off date, of March 1, how will this WG propose how to summarize submissions? > > > Will all subm$issions be posted in entirety on a web site for public free access? > > > > > > Are all submissions treated equally, or will govt. Contributions be given priority? > > > > > > > > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joana Varon > > > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:52:24 > > > To: ; ; > > > Subject: [governance] list of important questions to be delivered to LOC > > > before 27th meeting > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > The reps from the Committees will assemble on the 27th and there are a set of different important logistical question to the addressed asap in order to help our preparation. These are what I've listed in different interactions with different lists: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Is it going to be invitation only? > > > * If invite only, what are the criteria for invitation? Who decides who gets invited? > > > * There will be travel support? > > > * If yes, does people who is willing to attend by it's own cost can also be invited? What are the restrictions? > > > * There will be remote participation? > > > * What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? > > > * Is the final deadline for proposals really March, 1st (in the middle of Brazilian Carnival) > > > As the lack of final/clear/formal answers on these issues (and maybe others) is influencing the preparation process and our ability to plan our actions, I think this questions, and any additions (as far as related to logistics), should be formally delivered to LOC, even before the meeting, by Friday at the most. > > > > > > I've posed them to 1net steering as well, as it seams Adiel will be attending that particular meeting. So they can also be posed with support of other stakeholder groups. > > > > > > But, as 1net is not our only channel, it would be good if we could also reassure that our elected CS reps on EC (Adam and Marilia) have these (or more) questions formally reinforced also as a priority from their constituencies in the meeting on the 27th. (sorry for the cross post) > > > > > > > > > +1? Suggestions for more questions? > > > > > > > > > best > > > > > > joana > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > > @joana_varon > > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > > > __ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 11:52:15 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:52:15 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <20140106223339.189a301b@quill> <1959B958-C233-4866-A8D9-6CB217B6F7A8@catherine-roy.net> <169139709.7007.1389085610684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f33> <52CBFE4F.3090502@itforchange.net> <52CC0BCC.3080303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > > I would like then to motivate around to support both Louis and Norbert. > I'm happy to lend my full support to this pair. mawaki > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is > believed to be clean. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Mon Jan 27 09:09:14 2014 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:09:14 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] News - Charter of Human Rights & Principles for the Internet in Arabic In-Reply-To: <52E6654B.6080306@irpcharter.org> References: <52E6654B.6080306@irpcharter.org> Message-ID: <52E6688A.3070001@gold.ac.uk> Dear all Apologies for the cross-posting. This mail is to share with you all news that thanks to the Hivos IG-MENA project and their 'Click Rights' campaign that is being launched this week, the IRP Coalition's Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet booklet is now in Arabic, the first full translation of the IRP Charter. Please circulate and share with your networks to support the Hivos work in the MENA region to raise awareness and educate about existing and emerging rights and principles for the online environment. The PDF in Arabic is attached, it will be on the IRP Website very soon. For more information and inspiration see http://igmena.org/click-rights http://hivos.org/news/click-rights-and-get-it-right Please support the campaign and all those working in the MENA region to raise awareness of human rights online with governments, civil society, and business with the hashtag #IGMENA and include @ig_mena More news v. soon from the IRP Coalition list on other translations of the full Charter that are in the pipeline as well as on organizations and individuals who are endorsing the Charter. But first let us celebrate the first official translation of the IRP Charter into a world language. This is an exciting affirmation of the collaboration and energetic synergies across the IG community and related sectors that produced the Charter in the first place. Congratulations to all of those on all these lists who contributed from Day One (back in 2008/2009) and since then. This MENA focused campaign supports not only the IRP Charter work itself in its entirety but also underscores the synergies in expertise and inoput between the IRP Coalition, the IRP Charter and the Council of Europe's Guide on Human Rights for Internet Users which is moving from draft stage to final form; http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/; http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MSI-DUI/default_en.asp Attached are the English and Arabic Charter booklets, and the CoE Draft Guide fyi. best MF > _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > -- > Internet Rights and Principles Coalition > UN Internet Governance Forum > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/dynamiccoalitions/72-ibr > Homepage:www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > Twitter: @netrights > Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/internetrightsandprinciples -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRP Charter Booklet-1-Arabic.pdf Type: octet/stream Size: 725567 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRP Charter Booklet-1-2nd Edition.doc Type: application/msword Size: 156160 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ IRP-SC mailing list IRP-SC at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp-sc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CoEGuide.pdf Type: octet/stream Size: 133271 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon Jan 27 12:17:12 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (JCN Global) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:17:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> Milton, Sorry for it took me bit longer than expected to come back to you, following your last email. I was not so interested to go into your last comment, and your great knowledge of French culture and History. I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I do blame the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a minus-zero level, and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a narrative that is now fully out of scope and concern. Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it. But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST. Therefore, I have no other choice than to denounce the multistakeholder fluff and its empty ideas. That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with what you characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many friends in the US, honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only regret the way Internet Governance and its asymmetric situation have driven you guys out of your mind. The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of Multistakeholderism http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html JC Le 10 janv. 2014 à 23:24, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > >Or do you feel so badly that the United States Department of Commerce, and other > >acronyms needed a Professor of your standing to come to their rescue. > > You can ask the Department of Commerce about me coming to their rescue. I am not sure they view me as their savior. > > If you don’t like the US role, would it not be more constructive to make a specific proposals regarding how to detach the Department of Commerce from ICANN and the IANA contract? (as some of us have been advocating for years). If you don’t do this, would it be fair to conclude that you are more interested in public displays and posturing than in actually making things better? > > Are there any specific reform proposals to be found floating amongst the rhetorical perorations? Try communicating those and see if you get a better reception. > > Some of us do find your neo-DeGaullist Americo-phobic expressions quite entertaining, even riotously comical at times, but we read the list for other purposes. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Mon Jan 27 13:14:42 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:14:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Message-ID: + 1 JCN. You hit the bull's-eye. - - - On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: > Milton, > > Sorry for it took me bit longer than expected to come back to you, > following your last email. I was not so interested to go into your last > comment, and your great knowledge of French culture and History. > > I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I do blame > the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a minus-zero level, > and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a narrative that is now fully > out of scope and concern. > > Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA > functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a > supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in > order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more > interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such > a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. > But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all > national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, > is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of > what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal > Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a > treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a > sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it. > > But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST. Therefore, I > have no other choice than to denounce the multistakeholder fluff and its > empty ideas. > > That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with what you > characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many friends in the US, > honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only regret the way Internet > Governance and its asymmetric situation have driven you guys out of your > mind. > > The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of > Multistakeholderism > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html > > JC > > Le 10 janv. 2014 à 23:24, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > >Or do you feel so badly that the United States Department of Commerce, > and other > >acronyms needed a Professor of your standing to come to their rescue. > > You can ask the Department of Commerce about me coming to their rescue. I > am not sure they view me as their savior. > > If you don’t like the US role, would it not be more constructive to make a > specific proposals regarding how to detach the Department of Commerce from > ICANN and the IANA contract? (as some of us have been advocating for > years). If you don’t do this, would it be fair to conclude that you are > more interested in public displays and posturing than in actually making > things better? > > Are there any specific reform proposals to be found floating amongst the > rhetorical perorations? Try communicating those and see if you get a better > reception. > > Some of us do find your neo-DeGaullist Americo-phobic expressions quite > entertaining, even riotously comical at times, but we read the list for > other purposes. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From laura at article19.org Mon Jan 27 15:13:03 2014 From: laura at article19.org (Laura Tresca) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:13:03 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] New website Message-ID: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4AE1E@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> The brmeeting has a new name and a new website: http://netmundial.br/ ARTICLE 19 Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jan 27 15:24:48 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:24:48 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] New website In-Reply-To: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4AE1E@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4AE1E@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Message-ID: Name makes more sense, if other countries will co-host... Though still with the colors of the br flag and the logo is the layout of the cathedral build by Niemeyer in Brasilia. #funny [image: Inline image 1] On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: > The brmeeting has a new name and a new website: http://netmundial.br/ > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 > www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2014-01-27 at 6.19.07 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 272815 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jan 27 16:29:06 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:29:06 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: > I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I do blame the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a minus-zero level, and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a narrative that is now fully out of scope and concern. > > Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it. > > But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST. Therefore, I have no other choice than to denounce the multistakeholder fluff and its empty ideas. > > That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with what you characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many friends in the US, honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only regret the way Internet Governance and its asymmetric situation have driven you guys out of your mind. > > The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of Multistakeholderism > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html JC - Interesting remarks (and blog post); one must admire your audacity in attempting to stick the label "asymmetric" onto a position which specifically calls for "all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing." (perhaps your new "EQUAL IS ASYMMETRIC" slogan is presuming availability of a Ministry of Truth for promotion? ;-) After several readings, it would appear that the essence of your argument against the MS model is given in these two sentences: "The only problem is that this MS model is a very fluffy one, only supported by a high-level narrative and argumentative rhetoric with enough money so to be constantly repeated and inflated. The MS model keeps at bay any alternative Internet Governance that could build more trust, justice and equity around the globe. ... Their holly mission is to defend and protect the current status-quo, or any thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight under a MS Internet governance and its current imbalance." So: 1) Very fluffy - keeping alternatives at bay 2) Defends the status-quo, or thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight... and its current imbalance" Regarding the first point, Milton has invited you to provide some specific alternatives for reform.. will any be forthcoming? It's not very difficult to keep a non-existent alternative at bay, but that fault lies not with the existence of the Multistakeholder model... Regarding the second point, it completely discounts the reality that the Montevideo Statement has helped open up the dialogue about moving away from the present situation with a unique USG oversight role; this is the expected result of the call for equal footing for all participants (noted above). Perhaps you can explain how increasing the dialog on equal participation on Internet governance can be re-interpreted as an attempt "to preserve the US oversight"? Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Jan 27 16:34:31 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:34:31 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] New website In-Reply-To: References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77D4AE1E@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Message-ID: The most important part: space for contributions and a few info about it. *On the roadmap:* http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribution/roadmap "The roadmap should address the desirable properties for globally effective, legitimate and evolving governance frameworks. The roadmap should also encompass a path to evolve and globalize the current institutions and mechanisms, as well as address emerging needs. The head of content contribution will review all the forms received to eliminate spam and other unwanted emails. All accepted proposals will be made public. Off-topic proposals will not be accepted. You can make your proposal in one of the six official languages of the United Nation plus Portuguese. " *And on principles:* http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribution/principles No deadline mentioned yet. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Name makes more sense, if other countries will co-host... > Though still with the colors of the br flag and the logo is the layout of > the cathedral build by Niemeyer in Brasilia. > #funny > > > [image: Inline image 1] > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: > >> The brmeeting has a new name and a new website: http://netmundial.br/ >> >> ARTICLE 19 >> Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office >> Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar >> Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil >> tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 >> www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2014-01-27 at 6.19.07 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 272815 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon Jan 27 17:17:10 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (JCN Global) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:17:10 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> Message-ID: John, As written in my email to MM (maybe he will come back to me to talk baguette and béret) - Asymmetric is most appropriate indeed!! Thanks for the compliment. 12 governments are not all governments. Civil society? Political parties? Media? Users? Defense specialists? The NSA and other gentle surveillance tribes? You really want to get all stakeholders, so let bring these guys, they are part of the debate. - The objective of my post is not to present an alternative to the currents system but to denounce the way things are handled by the I* and the US camp i.e; the current system. From my understanding, there are a couple of strong alternatives in the making. They will not be established by ICANN et consorts. Maybe I will join and support them. The lists will learn more soon enough. The thoughtful evolution Chehadé is thinking of is, as he put himself, in "the US advantage". the threat to US business of a fragmented Internet is now the new argument to keep alternative at bay. To oppose bluntly multistakeholderism to multilateralism is a joke. To oppose ONE Internet to a fragmented Internet is another joke. - I don't know anything as fluffy as 'Equal Footing'. I confirm this. - I don't see the MS ever able to achieve a system with legitimacy delivering justice, and equity to all citizens equally. The invisible hand is taking care of where to put broadband, and where to have special traffic jam, and where to not be net neutral. Do you need me to quote Chehadé on his last remarks at MIT about what ultimately means MS to the participants??? A simple access and right to listen to the debate, with some in the audience being paid by the I* to applause when the sign 'Applause' is on. - The Multistakeholder model you are throwing at people over the last ten years has produced nothing new in the IG field. To the contrary, it has pushed the IGF on the verge of implosion, - these last days, the IGF seems to be declared knock-down for good, if we listen to Avri, Janet and others - leaving the road open to another fluffy box the 1net. So Historians and journalists like me can only observe that any alternative has so far been successfully rejected. - The Montevideo statement is made by the I*. Does that give to this statement any international value? Or any additional legitimacy? Or any sense of true Democratic change? (answers are all the way: no). SO the reality of that statement is close to nothing. Only was it made because of the international pressure that followed the NSA scandal. If it was not that scandal, the I* would have kept their peaceful coordinating meetings to a level of smart secrecy. "No, no it was public, but not publicized." - Coming now to the equal participation (do you mean "equal footing" or "fair nomination process", or "fair 1net noncom show") you tend to ignore that the reality of all that ICANN/Brazil process is fully biased, tainted with distrust and totally illegitimate - I know this is no much of your concern so far. You have been following the quarrels on the lists for the last two months. These quarrels are the product of the way things are orchestrated. Not of the people who would sincerely try to figure out a new IG. Are you sincere or naive when you ask me: how increasing the dialog on equal participation on Internet governance can be re-interpreted as an attempt "to preserve the US oversight. Finally John, between you and me, why don't you react to Pisanty's horrific statements in an ISOC side event at ICANN48? Is that anything acceptable to you????? I do respect people of your caliber. But I cannot disagree more with the way you are conducting and handling the necessary changes in IG. JC PS: I am now waiting for the trolls, and other good guys to come… Que casino! Le 27 janv. 2014 à 22:29, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: > >> I think one of the challenges we are all facing now is: TRUST. I do blame the US for getting the level of Trust over IG debate to a minus-zero level, and feel like it is still time to deconstruct a narrative that is now fully out of scope and concern. >> >> Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it. >> >> But, as I wrote first, my primary concern is about TRUST. Therefore, I have no other choice than to denounce the multistakeholder fluff and its empty ideas. >> >> That is the sense of my last HuffPost. It has nothing to do with what you characterized as US-phobic view. I have way too many friends in the US, honest, brilliant and so kind, that I can only regret the way Internet Governance and its asymmetric situation have driven you guys out of your mind. >> >> The Asymmetrics, the WEF, ICANN, Brazil, and the 'Little Red Book' of Multistakeholderism >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/the-asymmetrics-the-wef-i_b_4654438.html > > JC - > > Interesting remarks (and blog post); one must admire your audacity in attempting to stick the label > "asymmetric" onto a position which specifically calls for "all stakeholders, including all governments, > participate on an equal footing." (perhaps your new "EQUAL IS ASYMMETRIC" slogan is presuming > availability of a Ministry of Truth for promotion? ;-) > > After several readings, it would appear that the essence of your argument against the MS model is > given in these two sentences: > > "The only problem is that this MS model is a very fluffy one, only supported by a high-level narrative and argumentative rhetoric with enough money so to be constantly repeated and inflated. The MS model keeps at bay any alternative Internet Governance that could build more trust, justice and equity around the globe. ... Their holly mission is to defend and protect the current status-quo, or any thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight under a MS Internet governance and its current imbalance." > > So: > > 1) Very fluffy - keeping alternatives at bay > 2) Defends the status-quo, or thoughtful evolution so as to preserve the US oversight... and its current imbalance" > > Regarding the first point, Milton has invited you to provide some specific alternatives for reform.. > will any be forthcoming? It's not very difficult to keep a non-existent alternative at bay, but that fault > lies not with the existence of the Multistakeholder model... > > Regarding the second point, it completely discounts the reality that the Montevideo Statement has > helped open up the dialogue about moving away from the present situation with a unique USG > oversight role; this is the expected result of the call for equal footing for all participants (noted above). > > Perhaps you can explain how increasing the dialog on equal participation on Internet governance can > be re-interpreted as an attempt "to preserve the US oversight"? > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jan 27 18:42:20 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:42:20 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> Message-ID: <8ABEF8F8-0927-4795-87DA-8FA4248B3C3F@istaff.org> On Jan 27, 2014, at 5:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: > John, > > As written in my email to MM (maybe he will come back to me to talk baguette and béret) > > - Asymmetric is most appropriate indeed!! Thanks for the compliment. 12 governments are not all governments. I'm sorry - what restriction to 12 governments exists in the Multistakeholder model? (I believe that I've been following your replies, but it would help if you could go a bit slower for those of us who need it.) > - The objective of my post is not to present an alternative to the currents system but to denounce the way things are handled by the I* and the US camp i.e; the current system. You again conflate the I* leaders and the US camp... why? If one was in favor of status-quo, there is no reason to encourage discussion of evolution of the US oversight role, and yet this is precisely what the I* leaders did via the Montevideo Statement. > - I don't see the MS ever able to achieve a system with legitimacy delivering justice, and equity to all citizens equally. Propose a better alternative and the logical reasoning behind its structure. > - The Montevideo statement is made by the I*. Does that give to this statement any international value? Or any additional legitimacy? Or any sense of true Democratic change? (answers are all the way: no). SO the reality of that statement is close to nothing. Only was it made because of the international pressure that followed the NSA scandal. Actually, it was made for the same reason that you said made your statement: concerns about trust. Apparently, when you indicate that there's an issue with trust and that means looking at the USG role, that is wisdom being delivered to us all. However, when the I* leaders say the same thing, it means "close to nothing"? I honestly cannot understand how you can construe the Montevideo Statement as advocacy for the status quo, and my inquiries are trying to figure out the logical process that supports that assertion. > - Coming now to the equal participation (do you mean "equal footing" or "fair nomination process", or "fair 1net noncom show") you tend to ignore that the reality of all that ICANN/Brazil process is fully biased, tainted with distrust and totally illegitimate - I know this is no much of your concern so far. I actually have made no comment on the Brazil meeting (other than expressing some surprise about 1net's role) We are not in Brazil; we are on the 1net "governance" list discussing models for improving Internet governance, and to my knowledge participation on the list on completely equal footing to all. If you feel otherwise, I'd ask that you point this out immediately. > Finally John, between you and me, why don't you react to Pisanty's horrific statements in an ISOC side event at ICANN48? Is that anything acceptable to you????? I don't find it necessary to respond to everyone who has different views than I; I generally only engage enough to understand their reasoning (if I can't discern from the writing) and sometimes to point it out if my reasoning produces a different outcome from similar facts. In Alejandro's case, I understand his reasoning well enough, even though I may view some things differently. In your case, I cannot as frequently discern your reasoning nor factual basis (which is why you get to enjoy more of my replies...) > I do respect people of your caliber. But I cannot disagree more with the way you are conducting and handling the necessary changes in IG. I'm not "conducting" anything; I'm participating on this list just like many others in this discussion. With respect to the necessary changes in IG, it would be good to hear what you consider necessary and why... This discussion of necessary changes in IG structures is taking place via an initiative that exists _because_ of the Montevideo Statement and I* leaders, and likely why the allegations (of defense of the status quo) are somewhat humorous when posted to this particular list. Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jan 27 20:58:20 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:58:20 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <20140128011211.1543F2136B1@smtp2.arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> <8ABEF8F8-0927-4795-87DA-8FA4248B3C3F@istaff.org> <20140128011211.1543F2136B1@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: On Jan 27, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote: > John; > let phrase the things differently for you to understand. Most in the world do not trust the Internet establishment anymore and this is for us a *problem*. You are part of this establishment and you tell us, "I either, but we have a solution".. Interesting perspective... I hadn't quite realized that the trust issues (that stem with pervasive surveillance) have extended to the various non-governmental Internet institutions. There is quite a bit of irony if that is the case, but perception is reality in such matters and can be tricky at times. > 1. people are suspicious because they do not trust you as competent enough since you people have built and manage the current situation, and you do not have implement your solution. Could you rephrase the above? I understand "not trusted as competent", but the reasoning that follows doesn't make sense to me. Specifically, what is "the current situation" that we built to which you refer? > 2. but they are ready to frienrly listen to you. And you say nothing. You use multiloaded words: globalization, MSism, equal footing, a semantic arsenal If they question you, you respond: "define your alternative" They have none: they have you and your solutions as a problem. . Actually, we don't have any solutions... one would hope that we can collaborate on mutually acceptable solutions on this 1net discuss mailing list. > Why not to start with a few information on the /1net site, explaining the meaning of the words you use. Excellent idea; I believe that is a very good step in problem solving and hopefully can be done as either as general terms of reference or in individual problem statements as they are developed. >> We are not in Brazil; we are on the 1net "governance" list discussing models for improving Internet governance, > > Frankly, this list has no other interest than to prepare Sao Paulo because it may still more negatively impact the situation. No one is interested in the evolution of a vulnerable internet governance before one has decided of the evolution of the internet itself. That would appear to be fundemental impasse, as your assertion would imply that there is no reason to work on any Internet problems via this 1net mailing list, yet the mailing list is specifically about working collaboratively on Internet problems. >> and to my knowledge participation on the list on completely equal footing to all. If you feel otherwise, I'd ask that you point this out immediately. > > Ah ... the "equal footing" is not in governing or in designing the internet, it is on discussing them on this list! > Now I understand the qui pro quo. Designing the Internet? The Internet is the result of many Internet service providers all collaborating to provide services which together have more value than apart... I am uncertain what aspects of "designing the Internet" you feel should be part of Internet governance - if you wish to design Internet services, you should become an Internet service provider and/or participate in the IETF protocol development work. /John Disclaimer: My views alone. From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 11:56:01 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:56:01 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel Message-ID: Dear folks, Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan -- *Carol (in my personal capacity) * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Jan 27 21:29:11 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:29:11 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial Message-ID: Dear all, This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. Regarding the substantive agenda: *1. **Work Plan of EMC* - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls *2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)* - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. *3. Participation criteria* - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? àYes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. *4) Public consultation* obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something - Inputs will be provided through the website - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website - All contributions will be treated equally - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. *5. Meeting format/meeting agenda* - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. Day 1: 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony 11:30-13:00 – Principles 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks 16:30-18:00 – principles Day 2: 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. *6. Wrap-up, Next steps* Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. *Venue:* - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. Marília -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jan 27 21:52:38 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:52:38 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Marilia, Thank you for your email, time and focus on this. Will this committee prepare any content for the meeting? Is there any group on the Brazil side working on principles? Will the submissions be available in the website after being done for consultation by other stakeholders? What will this or other committee do with the submissions? tks C On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > > This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the > meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based > on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement > them. > > > > General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was > cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with > discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and > finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the > room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam > reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. > > > > Regarding the substantive agenda: > > > > *1. **Work Plan of EMC* > > - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that > each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote > participation will be available. > > - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to > the website > > - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary > > - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion > in-between meetings and calls > > > > *2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)* > > - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the > agenda > > - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more > to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. > > > > *3. Participation criteria* > > - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and > flexibility > > - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical > limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, > because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on > the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be > between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder > groups. > > - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will > register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their > institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with > the theme. > > - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of > individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” > allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people > among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers > will be able to attend. > > - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, > some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for > selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation > from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. > But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if > needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. > > - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not > fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space > to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. > > - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. > Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These > dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to > assess the scenario). > > - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. > > > > Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly > asked and responded: > > > > - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and > contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? àYes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. > > - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The > organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was > informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG > related meetings are discussing this topic. > > - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not > EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and > participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will > be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. > > > > *4) Public consultation* > > obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was > helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed > something > > > > - Inputs will be provided through the website > > - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. > Not yet defined) > > - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be > proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on > institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. > > - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of > inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the > website) > > - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in > the website > > - All contributions will be treated equally > > - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can > others please confirm?) > > - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy > reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others > confirm?) > > - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on > principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The > drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants > would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a > multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. > Further discussion is needed. > > > > *5. Meeting format/meeting agenda* > > - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split > the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some > other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative > schedule was drafted today. > > > > Day 1: > > 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony > > 11:30-13:00 – Principles > > 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks > > 16:30-18:00 – principles > > > > Day 2: > > 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks > > 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles > > 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) > > 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes > > > > Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to > give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among > different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. > > > > *6. Wrap-up, Next steps* > > Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was > the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. > > > > *Venue:* > > - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just > become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels > around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. > Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is > negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information > on that is coming soon. > > - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to > the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at > this moment. > > - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables > for flyers, publications and similar. > > > > One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work > harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and > actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. > Really something to be improved. > > > > Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. > > Marília > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 27 23:46:33 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:16:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] New fiefdoms, and a political system to match Message-ID: <52E73629.60902@itforchange.net> Comcast and Charter want to split up Time Warner's cable markets http://j.mp/1d5gPN1 (Ars Technica) Comcast and Charter are working out a deal in which Charter would acquire Time Warner Cable (TWC) and then sell some of those assets to Comcast. Previously, Charter offered to buy Time Warner for $61.3 billion or $37.3 billion excluding TWC's debt. Time Warner management rejected the amount, but Charter is attempting to push an acquisition through by appealing to shareholders. Today, Bloomberg reported that Comcast "is near a deal to buy New York City, North Carolina, and New England cable assets from Charter Communications Inc. if shareholders approve Charter's takeover bid for Time Warner Cable Inc." (ends) How many got so thoroughly fooled (willingly?) about what WCIT and many global Internet governance battles are really about..... Sure, Internet, that bastion of freedom and multistakeholderism, should never be regulated! That would spoil the party, as a new capital-feudalism emerges, which also has its political seats reserved (as the Lords of yore had in the UK Parliament) through the new political system of multistakeholderism. So that they can make sure that no political process can come in their way ..... No comments here on the so called technical community (read ISOC's response to the recent US court verdict on net neutrality) and civil society.. ... It is a well designed cast.... Unless and until, of course , the people rise.... Be sure that these early conquests in the US will be repeated in other countries soon.. This is an irresistible political economy paradigm - irresistible for the rich classes, which are now globally networked at the same time as they hide their narrow interests rather well... It is a potent structure and strategy. And no one to bell the cat! parminder From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 28 03:31:49 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:31:49 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Recruiting for Brazil-based project coordinator on privacy and Internet governance Message-ID: <52E76AF5.4040401@ciroap.org> Sorry for those who may have seen this posted elsewhere. Consumers International is recruiting for a project coordinator based in Brazil, to work with me in the Consumers in the Digital Age (CDA) programme. Their main responsibility would be to take charge of our new project on consumer data protection in emerging economies, which is a partnership with the German development enterprise GIZ. Subject to a funding decision which is currently pending, we also hope that the position will involve working on Internet governance issues, including supporting CI's work with the Best Bits network and also working closely with our Brazilian member IDEC. For more information on the position, please see the job advertisement here, and download the associated job description from the same page: http://A2Knetwork.org/work-ci-programme-coordinator-privacy-and-data-protection Initially the job advertisement was posted with the end of this week as the deadline for applications, but we will hold the deadline open for as long as is required to attract the right candidate. If anyone has any questions about the role please let me know, and please also feel free to circulate this opportunity amongst your contacts and networks. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 28 04:54:48 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:54:48 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Marilia, great notes. Not much to add. (I am not subscribed to cone-elist at net-equality.org, please forward) On the two topics: "internet governance principles" Agreement that a great deal of works has been done on principles, not that we now need more actual principles, but an attempt to develop a set of universal principles, to distill what we have. Some ideas about how to do this, but no clear agreement. "roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem" Issue less developed and less understood. What the particular sub-topics might be not as clear. Expecting input from the ICANN panel looking at the topic and the high-level panel. We mentioned that while the panels' input would be helpful, we did not want to defer to the work of those panels, they weren't the default content. I think now would be a good time to introduce the bestbits work on this. Question: how do we get from her, to some outcome on April 24? Or should we expect work to continue beyond Sao Paulo? (this is my preference.) BTW, I suspect the new website pages on content were intended as placeholders and not meant to go live. Checking this. Suggest everyone ignore for now. Date for contributions: I also had as March 1, but I found some of the conversations hard to follow (choppy and poorly mic'd room.) About the Transamerica Hotel: the conference facilities are available, but all rooms booked, so would mean many buses in an out from other hotels. Since making first inquires about hotels the Hyatt's become available, and as Marilia mentions has rooms and is also close to many other hotels, of different classes/cost. Local leads looking at the Hyatt as we were having our meeting. Seeing the meeting schedule reinforces how little time there will be. Which affects outcomes. Organizers are looking for flexibility in use of the venue later into the evening, and the Hyatt makes this possible. Looking at the possibility of an evening session on April 23 (7 to 9:30) for perhaps stakeholder meetings, perhaps regional. And if the venue can remain open late (or not close if you'd like to draft all night). Got the impression the logistics side working hard on arrangements, they are pretty experienced in holding meetings of similar type, and trying to be imaginative/helpful in arrangements. Adam On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. > > > General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. > > > Regarding the substantive agenda: > > > 1. Work Plan of EMC > > - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. > > - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website > > - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary > > - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls > > > 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics) > > - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda > > - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. > > > 3. Participation criteria > > - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility > > - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. > > - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. > > - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. > > - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. > > - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. > > - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). > > - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. > > > Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: > > > - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. > > - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. > > - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. > > > 4) Public consultation > > obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something > > > - Inputs will be provided through the website > > - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) > > - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. > > - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) > > - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website > > - All contributions will be treated equally > > - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) > > - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) > > - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. > > > > 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda > > - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. > > > Day 1: > > 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony > > 11:30-13:00 – Principles > > 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks > > 16:30-18:00 – principles > > > Day 2: > > 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks > > 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles > > 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) > > 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes > > > Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. > > > 6. Wrap-up, Next steps > > Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. > > > Venue: > > - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. > > - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. > > - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. > > > One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. > > > Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. > > Marília > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Jan 28 07:45:57 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:15:57 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Snowden-Interview: Transcript In-Reply-To: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> References: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> Specially for those who believe (or rather, who would like others to believe) that the status quo is to be preserved... Excerpt * Mr Snowden did you sleep well the last couple of nights because I was ** **reading that you asked for a kind of police protection. Are there any ** **threats? ** * There are significant threats but I sleep very well. There was an article that came out in an online outlet called Buzz Feed where they interviewed officials from the Pentagon, from the National Security Agency and they gave them anonymity to be able to say what they want and what they told the reporter was that they wanted to murder me. These individuals - and these are acting government officials. They said they would be happy, they would love to put a bullet in my head, to poison me as I was returning from the grocery store and have me die in the shower **But fortunately you are still alive with us.*** * Right but I'm still alive and I don't lose sleep because I've done what I feel I needed to do. It was the right thing to do and I'm not going to be afraid. **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German ** **companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what ** **is going on in a scientific and economic world.** I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic spying. End excerpt Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.Net Source - http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277_page-1.html Snowden-Interview in English - 26.01.2014 23:05 Uhr - Autor/in: Hubert Seipel Whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked the documents about US mass surveillance. He spoke about his disclosures and his life to NDR journalist Seipel in Moscow. *"The greatest fear I have", and I quote you, "regarding the disclosures is nothing will change." That was one of your greatest concerns at the time but in the meantime there is a vivid discussion about the situation with the NSA; not only in America but also in Germany and in Brazil and President Obama was forced to go public and to justify what the NSA was doing on legal grounds.* What we saw initially in response to the revelations was sort of a circling of the wagons of government around the National Security Agency. Instead of circling around the public and protecting their rights the political class circled around the security state and protected their rights. What's interesting is though that was the initially response, since then we've seen a softening. We've seen the President acknowledge that when he first said "we've drawn the right balance, there are no abuses", we've seen him and his officials admit that there have been abuses. There have been thousands of violations of the National Security Agency and other agencies and authorities every single year. **Is the speech of Obama the beginning of a serious regulation?*** * It was clear from the President's speech that he wanted to make minor changes to preserve authorities that we don't need. The President created a review board from officials that were personal friends, from national security insiders, former Deputy of the CIA, people who had every incentive to be soft on these programs and to see them in the best possible light. But what they found was that these programs have no value, they've never stopped a terrorist attack in the United States and they have marginal utility at best for other things. The only thing that the Section 215 phone metadata program, actually it's a broader metadata programme of bulk collection -- bulk collection means mass surveillance -- program was in stopping or detecting $ 8.500 wire transfer from a cab driver in California and it's this kind of review where insiders go we don't need these programs, these programs don't make us safe. They take a tremendous amount of resources to run and they offer us no value. They go "we can modify these". The National Security agency operates under the President's executive authority alone. He can end of modify or direct a change of their policies at any time. **For the first time President Obama did concede that the NSA collects ** **and stores trillions of data.*** * Every time you pick up the phone, dial a number, write an email, make a purchase, travel on the bus carrying a cell phone, swipe a card somewhere, you leave a trace and the government has decided that it's a good idea to collect it all, everything, even if you've never been suspected of any crime. Traditionally the government would identify a suspect, they would go to a judge, they would say we suspect he's committed this crime, they would get a warrant and then they would be able to use the totality of their powers in pursuit of the investigation. Nowadays what we see is they want to apply the totality of their powers in advance - prior to an investigation. **You started this debate, Edward Snowden is in the meantime a household ** **name for the whistleblower in the age of the internet. You were working ** **until last summer for the NSA and during this time you secretly ** **collected thousands of confidential documents. What was the decisive ** **moment or was there a long period of time or something happening, why ** **did you do this?*** * /I would say sort of the breaking point is seeing the Director of // //National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to // //Congress. There's no saving an intelligence community that believes it // //can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust // //it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was // //no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping realisation that no one // //else was going to do this. The public had a right to know about these // //programs. The public had a right to know that which the government is // //doing in its name, and that which the government is doing against the // //public, but neither of these things we were allowed to discuss, we were // //allowed no, even the wider body of our elected representatives were // //prohibited from knowing or discussing these programmes and that's a // //dangerous thing. The only review we had was from a secret court, the // //FISA Court, which is a sort of rubber stamp authority// // /When you are on the inside and you go into work everyday and you sit down at the desk and you realise the power you have - you can wire tap the President of the United States, you can wire tap a Federal Judge and if you do it carefully no one will ever know because the only way the NSA discovers abuses are from self reporting. * ***We're not talking only of the NSA as far as this is concerned, there is ** **a multilateral agreement for co-operation among the services and this ** **alliance of intelligence operations is known as the Five Eyes. What ** **agencies and countries belong to this alliance and what is its purpose?** The Five Eyes alliance is sort of an artifact of the post World War II era where the Anglophone countries are the major powers banded together to sort of co-operate and share the costs of intelligence gathering infrastructure. So we have the UK's GCHQ, we have the US NSA, we have Canada's C-Sec, we have the Australian Signals Intelligence Directorate and we have New Zealand's DSD. What the result of this was over decades and decades what sort of a supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries. **In many countries, as in America too the agencies like the NSA are not ** **allowed to spy within their own borders on their own people. So the ** **Brits for example they can spy on everybody but the Brits but the NSA ** **can conduct surveillance in England so in the very end they could ** **exchange their data and they would be strictly following the law.*** ** *If you ask the governments about this directly they would deny it and point to policy agreements between the members of the Five Eyes saying that they won't spy on each other's citizens but there are a couple of key points there. One is that the way they define spying is not the collection of data. The GCHQ is collecting an incredible amount of data on British Citizens just as the National Security Agency is gathering enormous amounts of data on US citizens. What they are saying is that they will not then target people within that data. They won't look for UK citizens or British citizens. In addition the policy agreements between them that say British won't target US citizens, US won't target British citizens are not legally binding. The actual memorandums of agreement state specifically on that that they are not intended to put legal restriction on any government. They are policy agreements that can be deviated from or broken at any time. So if they want to on a British citizen they can spy on a British citizen and then they can even share that data with the British government that is itself forbidden from spying on UK citizens. So there is a sort of a trading dynamic there but it's not, it's not open, it's more of a nudge and wink and beyond that the key is to remember the surveillance and the abuse doesn't occur when people look at the data it occurs when people gather the data in the first place. **How narrow is the co-operation of the German Secret Service BND with ** **the NSA and with the Five Eyes?*** * I would describe it as intimate. As a matter of fact the first way I described it in our written interview was that the German Services and the US Services are in bed together. They not only share information, the reporting of results from intelligence, but they actually share the tools and the infrastructure they work together against joint targets in services and there's a lot of danger in this. One of the major programmes that faces abuse in the National Security Agency is what's called "XKeyscore". It's a front end search engine that allows them to look through all of the records they collect worldwide every day. **What could you do if you would sit so to speak in their place with this ** **kind of instrument?*** * You could read anyone's email in the world. Anybody you've got email address for, any website you can watch traffic to and from it, any computer that an individual sits at you can watch it, any laptop that you're tracking you can follow it as it moves from place to place throughout the world. It's a one stop shop for access to the NSA's information. And what's more you can tag individuals using "XKeyscore". Let's say I saw you once and I thought what you were doing was interesting or you just have access that's interesting to me, let's say you work at a major German corporation and I want access to that network, I can track your username on a website on a form somewhere, I can track your real name, I can track associations with your friends and I can build what's called a fingerprint which is network activity unique to you which means anywhere you go in the world anywhere you try to sort of hide your online presence hide your identity, the NSA can find you and anyone who's allowed to use this or who the NSA shares their software with can do the same thing. Germany is one of the countries that have access to "XKeyscore". **This sounds rather frightening. The question is: does the BND deliver ** **data of Germans to the NSA?*** * Whether the BND does it directly or knowingly the NSA gets German data. Whether it's provided I can't speak to until it's been reported because it would be classified and I prefer that journalists make the distinctions and the decisions about what is public interest and what should be published. However, it's no secret that every country in the world has the data of their citizens in the NSA. Millions and millions and millions of data connections from Germans going about their daily lives, talking on their cell phones, sending SMS messages, visiting websites, buying things online, all of this ends up at the NSA and it's reasonable to suspect that the BND may be aware of it in some capacity. Now whether or not they actively provide the information I should not say. **The BND basically argues if we do this, we do this accidentally ** **actually and our filter didn't work.*** * Right so the kind of things that they're discussing there are two things. They're talking about filtering of ingest which means when the NSA puts a secret server in a German telecommunications provider or they hack a German router and they divert the traffic in a manner that let's them search through things they're saying "if I see what I think is a German talking to another German I'll drop it" but how do you know. You could say "well, these people are speaking the German language", "this IP address seems to be from a German company to another German company", but that's not accurate and they wouldn't dump all of that traffic because they'll get people who are targetes of interest, who are actively in Germany using German communications. So realistically what's happening is when they say there's no spying on Germans, they don't mean that German data isn't being gathered, they don't mean that records aren't being taken or stolen, what they mean is that they're not intentionally searching for German citizens. And that's sort of a fingers crossed behind the back promise, it's not reliable. **What about other European countries like Norway and Sweden for example ** **because we have a lot of I think under water cables going through the ** **Baltic Sea.** So this is sort of an expansion of the same idea. If the NSA isn't collecting information on German citizens in Germany are they as soon as it leaves German borders? And the answer is "yes". Any single communication that transits the internet, the NSA may intercept at multiple points, they might see it in Germany, they might see it in Sweden, they might see it in Norway or Finland, they might see it in Britain and they might see it in the United States. Any single one of these places that a German communication crosses it'll be ingested and added to the database. **So let's come to our southern European neighbours then. What about ** **Italy, what about France, what about Spain?** It's the same deal worldwide. **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German ** **companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what ** **is going on in a scientific and economic world.** I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic spying. If there's information at Siemens that they think would be beneficial to the national interests, not the national security of the United States, they'll go after that information and they'll take it. **There is this old saying "you do whatever you can do" so the NSA is ** **doing whatever is technically possible.*** * This is something that the President touched on last year where he said that just because we can do something, and this was in relation to tapping Angela Merkel's phone, just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should, and that's exactly what's happened. The technological capabilities that have been provided because of sort of weak security standards in internet protocols and cellular communications networks have meant that intelligence services can create systems that see everything. *Nothing annoyed the German government more than the fact that the NSA tapped the private phone of the German Chancellor Merkel over the last 10 years obviously, suddenly this invisible surveillance was connected with a known face and was not connected with a kind of watery shady terrorist background: Obama now promised to stop snooping on Merkel which raises the question: did the NSA tape already previous governments including the previous chancellors and when did they do that and how long did they do this for?* This is a particularly difficult question for me to answer because there's information that I very strongly believe is in the public interest. However, as I've said before I prefer for journalists to make those decisions in advance, review the material themselves and decide whether or not the public value of this information outweighs the sort of reputational cost to the officials that ordered the surveillance. What I can say is we know Angela Merkel was monitored by the National Security Agency. The question is how reasonable is it to assume that she is the only German official that was monitored, how reasonable is it to believe that she's the only prominent German face who the National Security Agency was watching. I would suggest it seems unreasonable that if anyone was concerned about the intentions of German leadership that they would only watch Merkel and not her aides, not other prominent officials, not heads of ministries or even local government officials. *How does a young man from Elizabeth City in North Carolina, 30 years old, get in such a position in such a sensitive area?* That's a very difficult question to answer. In general, I would say it highlights the dangers of privatising government functions. I worked previously as an actual staff officer, a government employee for the Central Intelligence Agency but I've also served much more frequently as a contractor in a private capacity. What that means is you have private for profit companies doing inherently governmental work like targeted espionage, surveillance, compromising foreign systems and anyone who has the skills who can convince a private company that they have the qualifications to do so will be empowered by the government to do that and there's very little oversight, there's very little review. *Have you been one of these classical computer kids sitting red eyed during the nights in the age of 12, 15 and your father was knocking on your door and saying "switch off the light, it's getting late now"? Did you get your computer skills from that side or when did you get your first computer?* Right I definitely have had a ... shall we say a deep informal education in computers and electronic technology. They've always been fascinating and interesting to me. The characterisation of having your parents telling you to go to bed I would say is fair. *If one looks to the little public data of your life one discovers that you obviously wanted to join in May 2004 the Special Forces to fight in Iraq, what did motivate you at the time? You know, Special Forces, looking at you in the very moment, means grim fighting and it means probably killing and did you ever get to Iraq?* No I didn't get to Iraq ... one of the interesting things about the Special Forces are that they're not actually intended for direct combat, they're what's referred to as a force multiplier. They're inserted behind enemy lines, it's a squad that has a number of different specialties in it and they teach and enable the local population to resist or to support US forces in a way that allows the local population a chance to help determine their own destiny and I felt that was an inherently noble thing at the time. In hindsight some of the reasons that we went into Iraq were not well founded and I think did a disservice to everyone involved. *What happened to your adventure then? Did you stay long with them or what happened to you?* No I broke my legs when I was in training and was discharged. *So it was a short adventure in other words?* It's a short adventure. *In 2007 the CIA stationed you with a diplomatic cover in Geneva in Switzerland. Why did you join the CIA by the way?* I don't think I can actually answer that one on the record. *OK if it's what you have been doing there forget it but why did you join the CIA?* In many ways I think it's a continuation of trying to do everything I could to prosecute the public good in the most effective way and it's in line with the rest of my government service where I tried to use my technical skills in the most difficult positions I could find in the world and the CIA offered that. *If we go back Special Forces, CIA, NSA, it's not actually in the description of a human rights activist or somebody who becomes a whistleblower after this. What happens to you?* I think it tells a story and that's no matter how deeply an individual is embedded in the government, no matter how faithful to the government they are, no matter how strongly they believe in the causes of their government as I did during the Iraq war, people can learn, people can discover the line between appropriate government behaviour and actual wrongdoing and I think it became clear to me that that line had been crossed. *You worked for the NSA through a private contractor with the name Booze Allen Hamilton, one of the big ones in the business. What is the advantage for the US Government or the CIA to work through a private contractor to outsource a central government function?* The contracting culture of the national security community in the United States is a complex topic. It's driven by a number of interests between primarily limiting the number of direct government employees at the same time as keeping lobbying groups in Congress typically from very well funded businesses such as Booze Allen Hamilton. The problem there is you end up in a situation where government policies are being influenced by private corporations who have interests that are completely divorced from the public good in mind. The result of that is what we saw at Booze Allen Hamilton where you have private individuals who have access to what the government alleges were millions and millions of records that they could walk out the door with at any time with no accountability, no oversight, no auditing, the government didn't even know they were gone. *At the very end you ended up in Russia. Many of the intelligence communities suspect you made a deal, classified material for Asylum here in Russia.* The Chief of the Task Force investigating me as recently as December said that their investigation had turned up no evidence or indications at all that I had any outside help or contact or had made a deal of any kind to accomplish my mission. I worked alone. I didn't need anybody's help, I don't have any ties to foreign governments, I'm not a spy for Russia or China or any other country for that matter. If I am a traitor who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they think they're working for. The public is supposed to be their boss not their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I'll never be fully safe until these systems have changed. *After your revelations none of the European countries really offered you asylum. Where did you apply in Europe for asylum?* I can't remember the list of countries with any specificity because there were many of them but France, Germany were definitely in there as was the UK. A number of European countries, all of whom unfortunately felt that doing the right thing was less important than supporting US political concerns. *One reaction to the NSA snooping is in the very moment that countries like Germany are thinking to create national internets an attempt to force internet companies to keep their data in their own country. Does this work?* It's not gonna stop the NSA. Let's put it that way. The NSA goes where the data is. If the NSA can pull text messages out of telecommunication networks in China, they can probably manage to get facebook messages out of Germany. Ultimately the solution to that is not to try to stick everything in a walled garden. Although that does raise the level of sophistication and complexity of taking the information. It's also much better simply to secure the information internationally against everyone rather than playing "let's move the data". Moving the data isn't fixing the problem. Securing the data is the problem. **President Obama in the very moment obviously doesn't care too much ** **about the message of the leak. And together with the NSA they do care ** **very much more about catching the messenger in that context. Obama asked ** **the Russian president several times to extradite you. But Putin did not. ** **It looks that you will stay to the rest of your life probably in Russia. ** **How do you feel about Russia in that context and is there a solution to ** **this problem.*** * I think it's becoming increasingly clear that these leaks didn't cause harm in fact they served the public good. Because of that I think it will be very difficult to maintain sort of an ongoing campaign of persecution against someone who the public agrees serve the public interest. **The New York Times wrote a very long comment and demanded clemency for ** **you. The headline "Edward Snowden Whistleblower" and I quote from that: ** **"The public learned in great detail how the agency has extended its ** **mandate and abused its authority." And the New York Times closes: ** **"President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr ** **Snowden's vilification and give him an incentive to return home." Did ** **you get a call in between from the White House?*** * I've never received a call from the White House and I am not waiting by the phone. But I would welcome the opportunity to talk about how we can bring this to a conclusion that serves the interest of all parties. I think it's clear that there are times where what is lawful is distinct from what is rightful. There are times throughout history and it doesn't take long for either an American or a German to think about times in the history of their country where the law provided the government to do things which were not right. **President Obama obviously is in the very moment not quite convinced of ** **that because he said to you are charged with three felonies and I quote: ** **"If you Edward Snowden believe in what you did you should go back to ** **America appear before the court with a lawyer and make your case." Is ** **this the solution?** It's interesting because he mentions three felonies. What he doesn't say is that the crimes that he has charged me with are crimes that don't allow me to make my case. They don't allow me to defend myself in an open court to the public and convince a jury that what I did was to their benefit. The espionage act was never intended, it's from 1918, it was never intended to prosecute journalistic sources, people who are informing the newspapers about information that's of public interest. It was intended for people who are selling documents in secret to foreign governments who are bombing bridges who are sabotaging communications not people who are serving the public good. So it's I would say illustrative that the president would choose to say someone should face the music when he knows the music is a show trial. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Tue Jan 28 08:17:03 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:17:03 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Snowden-Interview: Transcript In-Reply-To: <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> References: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: you can also see the whole interview (undubbed) in English here: https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en Best regards, Lorena 2014-01-28 Guru गुरु > Specially for those who believe (or rather, who would like others to > believe) that the status quo is to be preserved... > > Excerpt > > * Mr Snowden did you sleep well the last couple of nights because I was * > *reading that you asked for a kind of police protection. Are there any * > *threats? * > > There are significant threats but I sleep very well. There was an > article that came out in an online outlet called Buzz Feed where they > interviewed officials from the Pentagon, from the National Security > Agency and they gave them anonymity to be able to say what they want and > what they told the reporter was that they wanted to murder me. These > individuals - and these are acting government officials. They said they > would be happy, they would love to put a bullet in my head, to poison me > as I was returning from the grocery store and have me die in the shower > > **But fortunately you are still alive with us.** > > Right but I'm still alive and I don't lose sleep because I've done what > I feel I needed to do. It was the right thing to do and I'm not going to > be afraid. > > **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German * > *companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what * > *is going on in a scientific and economic world.** > > I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what > I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic > spying. > > > End excerpt > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net > > > Source - http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277_page-1.html > > Snowden-Interview in English > - 26.01.2014 23:05 Uhr - Autor/in: Hubert Seipel > > Whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked the documents about US mass > surveillance. He spoke about his disclosures and his life to NDR > journalist Seipel in Moscow. > > *"The greatest fear I have", and I quote you, "regarding the disclosures > is nothing will change." That was one of your greatest concerns at the > time but in the meantime there is a vivid discussion about the situation > with the NSA; not only in America but also in Germany and in Brazil and > President Obama was forced to go public and to justify what the NSA was > doing on legal grounds.* > > What we saw initially in response to the revelations was sort of a > circling of the wagons of government around the National Security > Agency. Instead of circling around the public and protecting their > rights the political class circled around the security state and > protected their rights. What's interesting is though that was the > initially response, since then we've seen a softening. We've seen the > President acknowledge that when he first said "we've drawn the right > balance, there are no abuses", we've seen him and his officials admit > that there have been abuses. There have been thousands of violations of > the National Security Agency and other agencies and authorities every > single year. > > **Is the speech of Obama the beginning of a serious regulation?** > > It was clear from the President's speech that he wanted to make minor > changes to preserve authorities that we don't need. The President > created a review board from officials that were personal friends, from > national security insiders, former Deputy of the CIA, people who had > every incentive to be soft on these programs and to see them in the best > possible light. But what they found was that these programs have no > value, they've never stopped a terrorist attack in the United States and > they have marginal utility at best for other things. The only thing that > the Section 215 phone metadata program, actually it's a broader metadata > programme of bulk collection -- bulk collection means mass surveillance > -- program was in stopping or detecting $ 8.500 wire transfer from a cab > driver in California and it's this kind of review where insiders go we > don't need these programs, these programs don't make us safe. They take > a tremendous amount of resources to run and they offer us no value. They > go "we can modify these". The National Security agency operates under > the President's executive authority alone. He can end of modify or > direct a change of their policies at any time. > > **For the first time President Obama did concede that the NSA collects * > *and stores trillions of data.** > > Every time you pick up the phone, dial a number, write an email, make a > purchase, travel on the bus carrying a cell phone, swipe a card > somewhere, you leave a trace and the government has decided that it's a > good idea to collect it all, everything, even if you've never been > suspected of any crime. Traditionally the government would identify a > suspect, they would go to a judge, they would say we suspect he's > committed this crime, they would get a warrant and then they would be > able to use the totality of their powers in pursuit of the > investigation. Nowadays what we see is they want to apply the totality > of their powers in advance - prior to an investigation. > > **You started this debate, Edward Snowden is in the meantime a household * > *name for the whistleblower in the age of the internet. You were working * > *until last summer for the NSA and during this time you secretly * > *collected thousands of confidential documents. What was the decisive * > *moment or was there a long period of time or something happening, why * > *did you do this?** > > *I would say sort of the breaking point is seeing the Director of * > *National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to * > *Congress. There's no saving an intelligence community that believes it * > *can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust * > *it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was * > *no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping realisation that no one * > *else was going to do this. The public had a right to know about these * > *programs. The public had a right to know that which the government is * > *doing in its name, and that which the government is doing against the * > *public, but neither of these things we were allowed to discuss, we were * > *allowed no, even the wider body of our elected representatives were * > *prohibited from knowing or discussing these programmes and that's a * > *dangerous thing. The only review we had was from a secret court, the * > *FISA Court, which is a sort of rubber stamp authority* > > When you are on the inside and you go into work everyday and you sit > down at the desk and you realise the power you have - you can wire tap > the President of the United States, you can wire tap a Federal Judge and > if you do it carefully no one will ever know because the only way the > NSA discovers abuses are from self reporting. > > **We're not talking only of the NSA as far as this is concerned, there is * > *a multilateral agreement for co-operation among the services and this * > *alliance of intelligence operations is known as the Five Eyes. What * > *agencies and countries belong to this alliance and what is its purpose?** > > The Five Eyes alliance is sort of an artifact of the post World War II > era where the Anglophone countries are the major powers banded together > to sort of co-operate and share the costs of intelligence gathering > infrastructure. > > So we have the UK's GCHQ, we have the US NSA, we have Canada's C-Sec, we > have the Australian Signals Intelligence Directorate and we have New > Zealand's DSD. What the result of this was over decades and decades what > sort of a supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer > to the laws of its own countries. > > **In many countries, as in America too the agencies like the NSA are not * > *allowed to spy within their own borders on their own people. So the * > *Brits for example they can spy on everybody but the Brits but the NSA * > *can conduct surveillance in England so in the very end they could * > *exchange their data and they would be strictly following the law.** > > If you ask the governments about this directly they would deny it and > point to policy agreements between the members of the Five Eyes saying > that they won't spy on each other's citizens but there are a couple of > key points there. One is that the way they define spying is not the > collection of data. The GCHQ is collecting an incredible amount of data > on British Citizens just as the National Security Agency is gathering > enormous amounts of data on US citizens. What they are saying is that > they will not then target people within that data. They won't look for > UK citizens or British citizens. In addition the policy agreements > between them that say British won't target US citizens, US won't target > British citizens are not legally binding. The actual memorandums of > agreement state specifically on that that they are not intended to put > legal restriction on any government. They are policy agreements that can > be deviated from or broken at any time. So if they want to on a British > citizen they can spy on a British citizen and then they can even share > that data with the British government that is itself forbidden from > spying on UK citizens. So there is a sort of a trading dynamic there but > it's not, it's not open, it's more of a nudge and wink and beyond that > the key is to remember the surveillance and the abuse doesn't occur when > people look at the data it occurs when people gather the data in the > first place. > > **How narrow is the co-operation of the German Secret Service BND with * > *the NSA and with the Five Eyes?** > > I would describe it as intimate. As a matter of fact the first way I > described it in our written interview was that the German Services and > the US Services are in bed together. They not only share information, > the reporting of results from intelligence, but they actually share the > tools and the infrastructure they work together against joint targets in > services and there's a lot of danger in this. One of the major > programmes that faces abuse in the National Security Agency is what's > called "XKeyscore". It's a front end search engine that allows them to > look through all of the records they collect worldwide every day. > > **What could you do if you would sit so to speak in their place with this * > *kind of instrument?** > > You could read anyone's email in the world. Anybody you've got email > address for, any website you can watch traffic to and from it, any > computer that an individual sits at you can watch it, any laptop that > you're tracking you can follow it as it moves from place to place > throughout the world. It's a one stop shop for access to the NSA's > information. And what's more you can tag individuals using "XKeyscore". > Let's say I saw you once and I thought what you were doing was > interesting or you just have access that's interesting to me, let's say > you work at a major German corporation and I want access to that > network, I can track your username on a website on a form somewhere, I > can track your real name, I can track associations with your friends and > I can build what's called a fingerprint which is network activity unique > to you which means anywhere you go in the world anywhere you try to sort > of hide your online presence hide your identity, the NSA can find you > and anyone who's allowed to use this or who the NSA shares their > software with can do the same thing. Germany is one of the countries > that have access to "XKeyscore". > > **This sounds rather frightening. The question is: does the BND deliver * > *data of Germans to the NSA?** > > Whether the BND does it directly or knowingly the NSA gets German data. > Whether it's provided I can't speak to until it's been reported because > it would be classified and I prefer that journalists make the > distinctions and the decisions about what is public interest and what > should be published. However, it's no secret that every country in the > world has the data of their citizens in the NSA. Millions and millions > and millions of data connections from Germans going about their daily > lives, talking on their cell phones, sending SMS messages, visiting > websites, buying things online, all of this ends up at the NSA and it's > reasonable to suspect that the BND may be aware of it in some capacity. > Now whether or not they actively provide the information I should not say. > > **The BND basically argues if we do this, we do this accidentally * > *actually and our filter didn't work.** > > Right so the kind of things that they're discussing there are two > things. They're talking about filtering of ingest which means when the > NSA puts a secret server in a German telecommunications provider or they > hack a German router and they divert the traffic in a manner that let's > them search through things they're saying "if I see what I think is a > German talking to another German I'll drop it" but how do you know. You > could say "well, these people are speaking the German language", "this > IP address seems to be from a German company to another German company", > but that's not accurate and they wouldn't dump all of that traffic > because they'll get people who are targetes of interest, who are > actively in Germany using German communications. So realistically what's > happening is when they say there's no spying on Germans, they don't mean > that German data isn't being gathered, they don't mean that records > aren't being taken or stolen, what they mean is that they're not > intentionally searching for German citizens. And that's sort of a > fingers crossed behind the back promise, it's not reliable. > > **What about other European countries like Norway and Sweden for example * > *because we have a lot of I think under water cables going through the * > *Baltic Sea.** > > So this is sort of an expansion of the same idea. If the NSA isn't > collecting information on German citizens in Germany are they as soon as > it leaves German borders? And the answer is "yes". Any single > communication that transits the internet, the NSA may intercept at > multiple points, they might see it in Germany, they might see it in > Sweden, they might see it in Norway or Finland, they might see it in > Britain and they might see it in the United States. Any single one of > these places that a German communication crosses it'll be ingested and > added to the database. > > **So let's come to our southern European neighbours then. What about * > *Italy, what about France, what about Spain?** > > It's the same deal worldwide. > > **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German * > *companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what * > *is going on in a scientific and economic world.** > > I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what > I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic > spying. > > If there's information at Siemens that they think would be beneficial to > the national interests, not the national security of the United States, > they'll go after that information and they'll take it. > > **There is this old saying "you do whatever you can do" so the NSA is * > *doing whatever is technically possible.** > > This is something that the President touched on last year where he said > that just because we can do something, and this was in relation to > tapping Angela Merkel's phone, just because we can do something doesn't > mean that we should, and that's exactly what's happened. The > technological capabilities that have been provided because of sort of > weak security standards in internet protocols and cellular > communications networks have meant that intelligence services can create > systems that see everything. > > *Nothing annoyed the German government more than the fact that the NSA > tapped the private phone of the German Chancellor Merkel over the last > 10 years obviously, suddenly this invisible surveillance was connected > with a known face and was not connected with a kind of watery shady > terrorist background: Obama now promised to stop snooping on Merkel > which raises the question: did the NSA tape already previous governments > including the previous chancellors and when did they do that and how > long did they do this for?* > > This is a particularly difficult question for me to answer because > there's information that I very strongly believe is in the public > interest. However, as I've said before I prefer for journalists to make > those decisions in advance, review the material themselves and decide > whether or not the public value of this information outweighs the sort > of reputational cost to the officials that ordered the surveillance. > What I can say is we know Angela Merkel was monitored by the National > Security Agency. The question is how reasonable is it to assume that she > is the only German official that was monitored, how reasonable is it to > believe that she's the only prominent German face who the National > Security Agency was watching. I would suggest it seems unreasonable that > if anyone was concerned about the intentions of German leadership that > they would only watch Merkel and not her aides, not other prominent > officials, not heads of ministries or even local government officials. > > *How does a young man from Elizabeth City in North Carolina, 30 years > old, get in such a position in such a sensitive area?* > > That's a very difficult question to answer. In general, I would say it > highlights the dangers of privatising government functions. I worked > previously as an actual staff officer, a government employee for the > Central Intelligence Agency but I've also served much more frequently as > a contractor in a private capacity. What that means is you have private > for profit companies doing inherently governmental work like targeted > espionage, surveillance, compromising foreign systems and anyone who has > the skills who can convince a private company that they have the > qualifications to do so will be empowered by the government to do that > and there's very little oversight, there's very little review. > > *Have you been one of these classical computer kids sitting red eyed > during the nights in the age of 12, 15 and your father was knocking on > your door and saying "switch off the light, it's getting late now"? Did > you get your computer skills from that side or when did you get your > first computer?* > > Right I definitely have had a ... shall we say a deep informal education > in computers and electronic technology. They've always been fascinating > and interesting to me. The characterisation of having your parents > telling you to go to bed I would say is fair. > > *If one looks to the little public data of your life one discovers that > you obviously wanted to join in May 2004 the Special Forces to fight in > Iraq, what did motivate you at the time? You know, Special Forces, > looking at you in the very moment, means grim fighting and it means > probably killing and did you ever get to Iraq?* > > No I didn't get to Iraq ... one of the interesting things about the > Special Forces are that they're not actually intended for direct combat, > they're what's referred to as a force multiplier. They're inserted > behind enemy lines, it's a squad that has a number of different > specialties in it and they teach and enable the local population to > resist or to support US forces in a way that allows the local population > a chance to help determine their own destiny and I felt that was an > inherently noble thing at the time. In hindsight some of the reasons > that we went into Iraq were not well founded and I think did a > disservice to everyone involved. > > *What happened to your adventure then? Did you stay long with them or > what happened to you?* > > No I broke my legs when I was in training and was discharged. > > *So it was a short adventure in other words?* > > It's a short adventure. > > *In 2007 the CIA stationed you with a diplomatic cover in Geneva in > Switzerland. Why did you join the CIA by the way?* > > I don't think I can actually answer that one on the record. > > *OK if it's what you have been doing there forget it but why did you > join the CIA?* > > In many ways I think it's a continuation of trying to do everything I > could to prosecute the public good in the most effective way and it's in > line with the rest of my government service where I tried to use my > technical skills in the most difficult positions I could find in the > world and the CIA offered that. > > *If we go back Special Forces, CIA, NSA, it's not actually in the > description of a human rights activist or somebody who becomes a > whistleblower after this. What happens to you?* > > I think it tells a story and that's no matter how deeply an individual > is embedded in the government, no matter how faithful to the government > they are, no matter how strongly they believe in the causes of their > government as I did during the Iraq war, people can learn, people can > discover the line between appropriate government behaviour and actual > wrongdoing and I think it became clear to me that that line had been > crossed. > > *You worked for the NSA through a private contractor with the name Booze > Allen Hamilton, one of the big ones in the business. What is the > advantage for the US Government or the CIA to work through a private > contractor to outsource a central government function?* > > The contracting culture of the national security community in the United > States is a complex topic. It's driven by a number of interests between > primarily limiting the number of direct government employees at the same > time as keeping lobbying groups in Congress typically from very well > funded businesses such as Booze Allen Hamilton. The problem there is you > end up in a situation where government policies are being influenced by > private corporations who have interests that are completely divorced > from the public good in mind. The result of that is what we saw at Booze > Allen Hamilton where you have private individuals who have access to > what the government alleges were millions and millions of records that > they could walk out the door with at any time with no accountability, no > oversight, no auditing, the government didn't even know they were gone. > > *At the very end you ended up in Russia. Many of the intelligence > communities suspect you made a deal, classified material for Asylum here > in Russia.* > > The Chief of the Task Force investigating me as recently as December > said that their investigation had turned up no evidence or indications > at all that I had any outside help or contact or had made a deal of any > kind to accomplish my mission. I worked alone. I didn't need anybody's > help, I don't have any ties to foreign governments, I'm not a spy for > Russia or China or any other country for that matter. If I am a traitor > who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, > to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they > see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they > think they're working for. The public is supposed to be their boss not > their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I'll never be > fully safe until these systems have changed. > > *After your revelations none of the European countries really offered > you asylum. Where did you apply in Europe for asylum?* > > I can't remember the list of countries with any specificity because > there were many of them but France, Germany were definitely in there as > was the UK. A number of European countries, all of whom unfortunately > felt that doing the right thing was less important than supporting US > political concerns. > > *One reaction to the NSA snooping is in the very moment that countries > like Germany are thinking to create national internets an attempt to > force internet companies to keep their data in their own country. Does > this work?* > > It's not gonna stop the NSA. Let's put it that way. The NSA goes where > the data is. If the NSA can pull text messages out of telecommunication > networks in China, they can probably manage to get facebook messages out > of Germany. Ultimately the solution to that is not to try to stick > everything in a walled garden. Although that does raise the level of > sophistication and complexity of taking the information. It's also much > better simply to secure the information internationally against everyone > rather than playing "let's move the data". Moving the data isn't fixing > the problem. Securing the data is the problem. > > **President Obama in the very moment obviously doesn't care too much * > *about the message of the leak. And together with the NSA they do care * > *very much more about catching the messenger in that context. Obama asked * > *the Russian president several times to extradite you. But Putin did not. * > *It looks that you will stay to the rest of your life probably in Russia. * > *How do you feel about Russia in that context and is there a solution to * > *this problem.** > > I think it's becoming increasingly clear that these leaks didn't cause > harm in fact they served the public good. Because of that I think it > will be very difficult to maintain sort of an ongoing campaign of > persecution against someone who the public agrees serve the public > interest. > > **The New York Times wrote a very long comment and demanded clemency for * > *you. The headline "Edward Snowden Whistleblower" and I quote from that: * > *"The public learned in great detail how the agency has extended its * > *mandate and abused its authority." And the New York Times closes: * > *"President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr * > *Snowden's vilification and give him an incentive to return home." Did * > *you get a call in between from the White House?** > > I've never received a call from the White House and I am not waiting by > the phone. But I would welcome the opportunity to talk about how we can > bring this to a conclusion that serves the interest of all parties. I > think it's clear that there are times where what is lawful is distinct > from what is rightful. There are times throughout history and it doesn't > take long for either an American or a German to think about times in the > history of their country where the law provided the government to do > things which were not right. > > **President Obama obviously is in the very moment not quite convinced of * > *that because he said to you are charged with three felonies and I quote: * > *"If you Edward Snowden believe in what you did you should go back to * > *America appear before the court with a lawyer and make your case." Is * > *this the solution?** > > It's interesting because he mentions three felonies. What he doesn't say > is that the crimes that he has charged me with are crimes that don't > allow me to make my case. They don't allow me to defend myself in an > open court to the public and convince a jury that what I did was to > their benefit. The espionage act was never intended, it's from 1918, it > was never intended to prosecute journalistic sources, people who are > informing the newspapers about information that's of public interest. It > was intended for people who are selling documents in secret to foreign > governments who are bombing bridges who are sabotaging communications > not people who are serving the public good. So it's I would say > illustrative that the president would choose to say someone should face > the music when he knows the music is a show trial. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Jan 28 08:42:29 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:42:29 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] Snowden-Interview: Transcript In-Reply-To: <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> References: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <94CDE8F7-9604-42E1-84C3-1CE4D2BEF0E7@istaff.org> On Jan 28, 2014, at 7:45 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > Specially for those who believe (or rather, who would like others to believe) that the status quo is to be preserved... If, by "status quo", you are referring to Mr. Snowden's remarks re threats to his life and economic espionage, the former is detestable (no person should face risk of death due to their well-intended remarks) but I have serious doubts whether any change in the status quo of Internet governance arrangements will impact that in the least. Same with respect to economic espionage, the unique US role in Internet governance does not appear to enable or facilitate the pervasive monitoring that has been revealed, so changing that role will not impact it at all. (The only good news on this front is that the IETF has taken up the issue of technical measures to prevent monitoring via its "perpass" efforts - ) If, by "status quo", you mean the unique role served by the USG in oversight of technical coordination of the Internet, then I'll note that I have seen very few folks on the 1net list support such a position, and there is no meaningful way that the Montevideo Statement can be read to support such a position. I believe there is a large number of ways to change the current structures to address the situation of the unique USG role in Internet coordination, and it's hoped that actual discussion of alternatives may occur on this list in the near future (once we all can move beyond posturing and get back to work on a problem statement...) /John Disclaimer: My views alone (and definitely not in support of the status quo) From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jan 28 09:57:12 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:57:12 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Snowden-Interview: Transcript In-Reply-To: <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> References: <52E6D143.9050306@gmail.com> <52E7A685.40507@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: I just got this in my email in a louder version: "Maybe if we all email each other a copy of the [US] constitution, the [US] NSA will finally read it." Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses * On 28 January 2014 06:45, Guru गुरु wrote: > Specially for those who believe (or rather, who would like others to > believe) that the status quo is to be preserved... > > Excerpt > > * Mr Snowden did you sleep well the last couple of nights because I was * > *reading that you asked for a kind of police protection. Are there any * > *threats? * > > There are significant threats but I sleep very well. There was an > article that came out in an online outlet called Buzz Feed where they > interviewed officials from the Pentagon, from the National Security > Agency and they gave them anonymity to be able to say what they want and > what they told the reporter was that they wanted to murder me. These > individuals - and these are acting government officials. They said they > would be happy, they would love to put a bullet in my head, to poison me > as I was returning from the grocery store and have me die in the shower > > **But fortunately you are still alive with us.** > > Right but I'm still alive and I don't lose sleep because I've done what > I feel I needed to do. It was the right thing to do and I'm not going to > be afraid. > > **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German * > *companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what * > *is going on in a scientific and economic world.** > > I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what > I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic > spying. > > > End excerpt > > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Director, IT for Change > In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.Net > > > Source - http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277_page-1.html > > Snowden-Interview in English > - 26.01.2014 23:05 Uhr - Autor/in: Hubert Seipel > > Whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked the documents about US mass > surveillance. He spoke about his disclosures and his life to NDR > journalist Seipel in Moscow. > > *"The greatest fear I have", and I quote you, "regarding the disclosures > is nothing will change." That was one of your greatest concerns at the > time but in the meantime there is a vivid discussion about the situation > with the NSA; not only in America but also in Germany and in Brazil and > President Obama was forced to go public and to justify what the NSA was > doing on legal grounds.* > > What we saw initially in response to the revelations was sort of a > circling of the wagons of government around the National Security > Agency. Instead of circling around the public and protecting their > rights the political class circled around the security state and > protected their rights. What's interesting is though that was the > initially response, since then we've seen a softening. We've seen the > President acknowledge that when he first said "we've drawn the right > balance, there are no abuses", we've seen him and his officials admit > that there have been abuses. There have been thousands of violations of > the National Security Agency and other agencies and authorities every > single year. > > **Is the speech of Obama the beginning of a serious regulation?** > > It was clear from the President's speech that he wanted to make minor > changes to preserve authorities that we don't need. The President > created a review board from officials that were personal friends, from > national security insiders, former Deputy of the CIA, people who had > every incentive to be soft on these programs and to see them in the best > possible light. But what they found was that these programs have no > value, they've never stopped a terrorist attack in the United States and > they have marginal utility at best for other things. The only thing that > the Section 215 phone metadata program, actually it's a broader metadata > programme of bulk collection -- bulk collection means mass surveillance > -- program was in stopping or detecting $ 8.500 wire transfer from a cab > driver in California and it's this kind of review where insiders go we > don't need these programs, these programs don't make us safe. They take > a tremendous amount of resources to run and they offer us no value. They > go "we can modify these". The National Security agency operates under > the President's executive authority alone. He can end of modify or > direct a change of their policies at any time. > > **For the first time President Obama did concede that the NSA collects * > *and stores trillions of data.** > > Every time you pick up the phone, dial a number, write an email, make a > purchase, travel on the bus carrying a cell phone, swipe a card > somewhere, you leave a trace and the government has decided that it's a > good idea to collect it all, everything, even if you've never been > suspected of any crime. Traditionally the government would identify a > suspect, they would go to a judge, they would say we suspect he's > committed this crime, they would get a warrant and then they would be > able to use the totality of their powers in pursuit of the > investigation. Nowadays what we see is they want to apply the totality > of their powers in advance - prior to an investigation. > > **You started this debate, Edward Snowden is in the meantime a household * > *name for the whistleblower in the age of the internet. You were working * > *until last summer for the NSA and during this time you secretly * > *collected thousands of confidential documents. What was the decisive * > *moment or was there a long period of time or something happening, why * > *did you do this?** > > *I would say sort of the breaking point is seeing the Director of * > *National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to * > *Congress. There's no saving an intelligence community that believes it * > *can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust * > *it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was * > *no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping realisation that no one * > *else was going to do this. The public had a right to know about these * > *programs. The public had a right to know that which the government is * > *doing in its name, and that which the government is doing against the * > *public, but neither of these things we were allowed to discuss, we were * > *allowed no, even the wider body of our elected representatives were * > *prohibited from knowing or discussing these programmes and that's a * > *dangerous thing. The only review we had was from a secret court, the * > *FISA Court, which is a sort of rubber stamp authority* > > When you are on the inside and you go into work everyday and you sit > down at the desk and you realise the power you have - you can wire tap > the President of the United States, you can wire tap a Federal Judge and > if you do it carefully no one will ever know because the only way the > NSA discovers abuses are from self reporting. > > **We're not talking only of the NSA as far as this is concerned, there is * > *a multilateral agreement for co-operation among the services and this * > *alliance of intelligence operations is known as the Five Eyes. What * > *agencies and countries belong to this alliance and what is its purpose?** > > The Five Eyes alliance is sort of an artifact of the post World War II > era where the Anglophone countries are the major powers banded together > to sort of co-operate and share the costs of intelligence gathering > infrastructure. > > So we have the UK's GCHQ, we have the US NSA, we have Canada's C-Sec, we > have the Australian Signals Intelligence Directorate and we have New > Zealand's DSD. What the result of this was over decades and decades what > sort of a supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer > to the laws of its own countries. > > **In many countries, as in America too the agencies like the NSA are not * > *allowed to spy within their own borders on their own people. So the * > *Brits for example they can spy on everybody but the Brits but the NSA * > *can conduct surveillance in England so in the very end they could * > *exchange their data and they would be strictly following the law.** > > If you ask the governments about this directly they would deny it and > point to policy agreements between the members of the Five Eyes saying > that they won't spy on each other's citizens but there are a couple of > key points there. One is that the way they define spying is not the > collection of data. The GCHQ is collecting an incredible amount of data > on British Citizens just as the National Security Agency is gathering > enormous amounts of data on US citizens. What they are saying is that > they will not then target people within that data. They won't look for > UK citizens or British citizens. In addition the policy agreements > between them that say British won't target US citizens, US won't target > British citizens are not legally binding. The actual memorandums of > agreement state specifically on that that they are not intended to put > legal restriction on any government. They are policy agreements that can > be deviated from or broken at any time. So if they want to on a British > citizen they can spy on a British citizen and then they can even share > that data with the British government that is itself forbidden from > spying on UK citizens. So there is a sort of a trading dynamic there but > it's not, it's not open, it's more of a nudge and wink and beyond that > the key is to remember the surveillance and the abuse doesn't occur when > people look at the data it occurs when people gather the data in the > first place. > > **How narrow is the co-operation of the German Secret Service BND with * > *the NSA and with the Five Eyes?** > > I would describe it as intimate. As a matter of fact the first way I > described it in our written interview was that the German Services and > the US Services are in bed together. They not only share information, > the reporting of results from intelligence, but they actually share the > tools and the infrastructure they work together against joint targets in > services and there's a lot of danger in this. One of the major > programmes that faces abuse in the National Security Agency is what's > called "XKeyscore". It's a front end search engine that allows them to > look through all of the records they collect worldwide every day. > > **What could you do if you would sit so to speak in their place with this * > *kind of instrument?** > > You could read anyone's email in the world. Anybody you've got email > address for, any website you can watch traffic to and from it, any > computer that an individual sits at you can watch it, any laptop that > you're tracking you can follow it as it moves from place to place > throughout the world. It's a one stop shop for access to the NSA's > information. And what's more you can tag individuals using "XKeyscore". > Let's say I saw you once and I thought what you were doing was > interesting or you just have access that's interesting to me, let's say > you work at a major German corporation and I want access to that > network, I can track your username on a website on a form somewhere, I > can track your real name, I can track associations with your friends and > I can build what's called a fingerprint which is network activity unique > to you which means anywhere you go in the world anywhere you try to sort > of hide your online presence hide your identity, the NSA can find you > and anyone who's allowed to use this or who the NSA shares their > software with can do the same thing. Germany is one of the countries > that have access to "XKeyscore". > > **This sounds rather frightening. The question is: does the BND deliver * > *data of Germans to the NSA?** > > Whether the BND does it directly or knowingly the NSA gets German data. > Whether it's provided I can't speak to until it's been reported because > it would be classified and I prefer that journalists make the > distinctions and the decisions about what is public interest and what > should be published. However, it's no secret that every country in the > world has the data of their citizens in the NSA. Millions and millions > and millions of data connections from Germans going about their daily > lives, talking on their cell phones, sending SMS messages, visiting > websites, buying things online, all of this ends up at the NSA and it's > reasonable to suspect that the BND may be aware of it in some capacity. > Now whether or not they actively provide the information I should not say. > > **The BND basically argues if we do this, we do this accidentally * > *actually and our filter didn't work.** > > Right so the kind of things that they're discussing there are two > things. They're talking about filtering of ingest which means when the > NSA puts a secret server in a German telecommunications provider or they > hack a German router and they divert the traffic in a manner that let's > them search through things they're saying "if I see what I think is a > German talking to another German I'll drop it" but how do you know. You > could say "well, these people are speaking the German language", "this > IP address seems to be from a German company to another German company", > but that's not accurate and they wouldn't dump all of that traffic > because they'll get people who are targetes of interest, who are > actively in Germany using German communications. So realistically what's > happening is when they say there's no spying on Germans, they don't mean > that German data isn't being gathered, they don't mean that records > aren't being taken or stolen, what they mean is that they're not > intentionally searching for German citizens. And that's sort of a > fingers crossed behind the back promise, it's not reliable. > > **What about other European countries like Norway and Sweden for example * > *because we have a lot of I think under water cables going through the * > *Baltic Sea.** > > So this is sort of an expansion of the same idea. If the NSA isn't > collecting information on German citizens in Germany are they as soon as > it leaves German borders? And the answer is "yes". Any single > communication that transits the internet, the NSA may intercept at > multiple points, they might see it in Germany, they might see it in > Sweden, they might see it in Norway or Finland, they might see it in > Britain and they might see it in the United States. Any single one of > these places that a German communication crosses it'll be ingested and > added to the database. > > **So let's come to our southern European neighbours then. What about * > *Italy, what about France, what about Spain?** > > It's the same deal worldwide. > > **Does the NSA spy on Siemens, on Mercedes, on other successful German * > *companies for example, to prevail, to have the advantage of knowing what * > *is going on in a scientific and economic world.** > > I don't want to pre-empt the editorial decisions of journalists but what > I will say is there's no question that the US is engaged in economic > spying. > > If there's information at Siemens that they think would be beneficial to > the national interests, not the national security of the United States, > they'll go after that information and they'll take it. > > **There is this old saying "you do whatever you can do" so the NSA is * > *doing whatever is technically possible.** > > This is something that the President touched on last year where he said > that just because we can do something, and this was in relation to > tapping Angela Merkel's phone, just because we can do something doesn't > mean that we should, and that's exactly what's happened. The > technological capabilities that have been provided because of sort of > weak security standards in internet protocols and cellular > communications networks have meant that intelligence services can create > systems that see everything. > > *Nothing annoyed the German government more than the fact that the NSA > tapped the private phone of the German Chancellor Merkel over the last > 10 years obviously, suddenly this invisible surveillance was connected > with a known face and was not connected with a kind of watery shady > terrorist background: Obama now promised to stop snooping on Merkel > which raises the question: did the NSA tape already previous governments > including the previous chancellors and when did they do that and how > long did they do this for?* > > This is a particularly difficult question for me to answer because > there's information that I very strongly believe is in the public > interest. However, as I've said before I prefer for journalists to make > those decisions in advance, review the material themselves and decide > whether or not the public value of this information outweighs the sort > of reputational cost to the officials that ordered the surveillance. > What I can say is we know Angela Merkel was monitored by the National > Security Agency. The question is how reasonable is it to assume that she > is the only German official that was monitored, how reasonable is it to > believe that she's the only prominent German face who the National > Security Agency was watching. I would suggest it seems unreasonable that > if anyone was concerned about the intentions of German leadership that > they would only watch Merkel and not her aides, not other prominent > officials, not heads of ministries or even local government officials. > > *How does a young man from Elizabeth City in North Carolina, 30 years > old, get in such a position in such a sensitive area?* > > That's a very difficult question to answer. In general, I would say it > highlights the dangers of privatising government functions. I worked > previously as an actual staff officer, a government employee for the > Central Intelligence Agency but I've also served much more frequently as > a contractor in a private capacity. What that means is you have private > for profit companies doing inherently governmental work like targeted > espionage, surveillance, compromising foreign systems and anyone who has > the skills who can convince a private company that they have the > qualifications to do so will be empowered by the government to do that > and there's very little oversight, there's very little review. > > *Have you been one of these classical computer kids sitting red eyed > during the nights in the age of 12, 15 and your father was knocking on > your door and saying "switch off the light, it's getting late now"? Did > you get your computer skills from that side or when did you get your > first computer?* > > Right I definitely have had a ... shall we say a deep informal education > in computers and electronic technology. They've always been fascinating > and interesting to me. The characterisation of having your parents > telling you to go to bed I would say is fair. > > *If one looks to the little public data of your life one discovers that > you obviously wanted to join in May 2004 the Special Forces to fight in > Iraq, what did motivate you at the time? You know, Special Forces, > looking at you in the very moment, means grim fighting and it means > probably killing and did you ever get to Iraq?* > > No I didn't get to Iraq ... one of the interesting things about the > Special Forces are that they're not actually intended for direct combat, > they're what's referred to as a force multiplier. They're inserted > behind enemy lines, it's a squad that has a number of different > specialties in it and they teach and enable the local population to > resist or to support US forces in a way that allows the local population > a chance to help determine their own destiny and I felt that was an > inherently noble thing at the time. In hindsight some of the reasons > that we went into Iraq were not well founded and I think did a > disservice to everyone involved. > > *What happened to your adventure then? Did you stay long with them or > what happened to you?* > > No I broke my legs when I was in training and was discharged. > > *So it was a short adventure in other words?* > > It's a short adventure. > > *In 2007 the CIA stationed you with a diplomatic cover in Geneva in > Switzerland. Why did you join the CIA by the way?* > > I don't think I can actually answer that one on the record. > > *OK if it's what you have been doing there forget it but why did you > join the CIA?* > > In many ways I think it's a continuation of trying to do everything I > could to prosecute the public good in the most effective way and it's in > line with the rest of my government service where I tried to use my > technical skills in the most difficult positions I could find in the > world and the CIA offered that. > > *If we go back Special Forces, CIA, NSA, it's not actually in the > description of a human rights activist or somebody who becomes a > whistleblower after this. What happens to you?* > > I think it tells a story and that's no matter how deeply an individual > is embedded in the government, no matter how faithful to the government > they are, no matter how strongly they believe in the causes of their > government as I did during the Iraq war, people can learn, people can > discover the line between appropriate government behaviour and actual > wrongdoing and I think it became clear to me that that line had been > crossed. > > *You worked for the NSA through a private contractor with the name Booze > Allen Hamilton, one of the big ones in the business. What is the > advantage for the US Government or the CIA to work through a private > contractor to outsource a central government function?* > > The contracting culture of the national security community in the United > States is a complex topic. It's driven by a number of interests between > primarily limiting the number of direct government employees at the same > time as keeping lobbying groups in Congress typically from very well > funded businesses such as Booze Allen Hamilton. The problem there is you > end up in a situation where government policies are being influenced by > private corporations who have interests that are completely divorced > from the public good in mind. The result of that is what we saw at Booze > Allen Hamilton where you have private individuals who have access to > what the government alleges were millions and millions of records that > they could walk out the door with at any time with no accountability, no > oversight, no auditing, the government didn't even know they were gone. > > *At the very end you ended up in Russia. Many of the intelligence > communities suspect you made a deal, classified material for Asylum here > in Russia.* > > The Chief of the Task Force investigating me as recently as December > said that their investigation had turned up no evidence or indications > at all that I had any outside help or contact or had made a deal of any > kind to accomplish my mission. I worked alone. I didn't need anybody's > help, I don't have any ties to foreign governments, I'm not a spy for > Russia or China or any other country for that matter. If I am a traitor > who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, > to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they > see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they > think they're working for. The public is supposed to be their boss not > their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I'll never be > fully safe until these systems have changed. > > *After your revelations none of the European countries really offered > you asylum. Where did you apply in Europe for asylum?* > > I can't remember the list of countries with any specificity because > there were many of them but France, Germany were definitely in there as > was the UK. A number of European countries, all of whom unfortunately > felt that doing the right thing was less important than supporting US > political concerns. > > *One reaction to the NSA snooping is in the very moment that countries > like Germany are thinking to create national internets an attempt to > force internet companies to keep their data in their own country. Does > this work?* > > It's not gonna stop the NSA. Let's put it that way. The NSA goes where > the data is. If the NSA can pull text messages out of telecommunication > networks in China, they can probably manage to get facebook messages out > of Germany. Ultimately the solution to that is not to try to stick > everything in a walled garden. Although that does raise the level of > sophistication and complexity of taking the information. It's also much > better simply to secure the information internationally against everyone > rather than playing "let's move the data". Moving the data isn't fixing > the problem. Securing the data is the problem. > > **President Obama in the very moment obviously doesn't care too much * > *about the message of the leak. And together with the NSA they do care * > *very much more about catching the messenger in that context. Obama asked * > *the Russian president several times to extradite you. But Putin did not. * > *It looks that you will stay to the rest of your life probably in Russia. * > *How do you feel about Russia in that context and is there a solution to * > *this problem.** > > I think it's becoming increasingly clear that these leaks didn't cause > harm in fact they served the public good. Because of that I think it > will be very difficult to maintain sort of an ongoing campaign of > persecution against someone who the public agrees serve the public > interest. > > **The New York Times wrote a very long comment and demanded clemency for * > *you. The headline "Edward Snowden Whistleblower" and I quote from that: * > *"The public learned in great detail how the agency has extended its * > *mandate and abused its authority." And the New York Times closes: * > *"President Obama should tell his aides to begin finding a way to end Mr * > *Snowden's vilification and give him an incentive to return home." Did * > *you get a call in between from the White House?** > > I've never received a call from the White House and I am not waiting by > the phone. But I would welcome the opportunity to talk about how we can > bring this to a conclusion that serves the interest of all parties. I > think it's clear that there are times where what is lawful is distinct > from what is rightful. There are times throughout history and it doesn't > take long for either an American or a German to think about times in the > history of their country where the law provided the government to do > things which were not right. > > **President Obama obviously is in the very moment not quite convinced of * > *that because he said to you are charged with three felonies and I quote: * > *"If you Edward Snowden believe in what you did you should go back to * > *America appear before the court with a lawyer and make your case." Is * > *this the solution?** > > It's interesting because he mentions three felonies. What he doesn't say > is that the crimes that he has charged me with are crimes that don't > allow me to make my case. They don't allow me to defend myself in an > open court to the public and convince a jury that what I did was to > their benefit. The espionage act was never intended, it's from 1918, it > was never intended to prosecute journalistic sources, people who are > informing the newspapers about information that's of public interest. It > was intended for people who are selling documents in secret to foreign > governments who are bombing bridges who are sabotaging communications > not people who are serving the public good. So it's I would say > illustrative that the president would choose to say someone should face > the music when he knows the music is a show trial. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 28 10:01:36 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 23:01:36 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Draft submission on 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: <253EF226-EB50-4A33-B666-13A283154403@ciroap.org> References: <253EF226-EB50-4A33-B666-13A283154403@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <374E46D2-17E1-41E9-9777-3281CF5AC644@ciroap.org> On 19 Jan 2014, at 5:37 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am offering this as the basis for a proposed joint submission to the IGF on proposals for the 2014 meeting. I will put it up on a pad for amendments, but I'm mailing it around for initial comments first. Thanks to Fouad, Tracy, Norbert, Matthew and Avri for valuable comments, both here and in the pad at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-2014. Endeavouring to incorporate these, here is a proposed revised version of the joint submission to the IGF on proposals for the 2014 meeting: The IGF has always struck a balance between continuity and incremental improvement in its themes and format. But overall, over nine years since the first meeting in 2006, whilst the names of themes and sessions formats have changed, there has been relatively little change in their substance. The IGF is still a discontinuous, face-to-face, four day meeting, composed of overlapping main sessions and workshops. For those who do not admit of gaps in current Internet governance arrangements or do not desire for those gaps to be filled by a natively multi-stakeholder institution, the IGF's resistance to change is neither a problem, nor a coincidence. But over the years as flaws in present arrangements have become apparent, the recognition of governance gaps has become more widespread and inspired more urgency for significant reform that would also better address developing country concerns. This has fuelled discussions outside of the IGF, such as the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, in which the possibility of a reformed IGF taking a more significant role in future Internet governance arrangements continues to come up. The IGF is challenged to respond to this call for more substantial reform to its processes, and there is no better time to do this than in preparation for its ninth meeting in Istanbul in September 2014, following on from the Brazil meeting, and heading towards its second review by the UN General Assembly. With an entirely new IGF MAG also in place for 2014, the opportunity exists for a fresh start, in which a number of unchallenged assumptions about how the IGF should operate can be critically examined again, and new ideas tried out. Yet none of the suggestions for reform given here are actually new. Several of them have been made every year since the IGF's formation in 2006, or earlier, but have never been adopted before now. The following are actionable immediately, without any need for change to the IGF's mandate: Themes While maintaining its own independence, the IGF should find space within its agenda to discuss, and if appropriate affirm and commit to implementing the recommendations from the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. In general, the IGF should address policy questions that are controversial and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other multi-stakeholder mechanism for global coordination. It should avoid themes that are too broadly framed like "openness" and "security" that are not grounded in any specific real-life context. The national IGFs should feed issues into the regional IGFs which should in turn feed issues into the Global IGF so that the the issues at the global level in part reflect the concerns and challenges raised by the national and regional IGFs - a reporting in session by IGFs (as is currently the case) is inadequate. Session formats To make the IGF more practically useful, designated workshops should be dedicated to developing non-binding opinions, recommending policy principles that stakeholders can follow to address pressing current issues. Workshop report formats should be standardised so that these recommendations, how they were arrived at, and any areas of divergence, can be easily communicated. Whilst there will always remain room for parallel workshop tracks, workshops should be purposeful and focussed, with emphasis on the main themes selected for the meeting. Efforts should be made to eliminate low-quality, repetitive and redundant workshops. Main sessions can and should also be used to develop outputs on the most important issues of cross-cutting importance. A number of Best Bits participants described one simple way in which such a session could work, in a statement issued on 20 May 2013 that is available at http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. Speed dialogues were another method considered by the MAG in the past, but never tried. Techniques used at the national and regional meetings should also be looked at. To that end, main sessions and workshops should be separated. When these overlap each other, it becomes impossible for all interested IGF participants to join together to address important shared issues in an outcome-oriented, deliberative plenary session. This will also require a limit on the number of plenary meetings, to balance the time spent on plenaries and workshops. Online deliberation The IGF should improve its capacity to sustain a work programme between meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern. Such a reform would add much value for online participants, essentially providing an online and intersessional equivalent of the annual IGF meeting. Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in the IGF, because they are not granted the same status as those who attend the face-to-face meetings. Data from the IGF (including calendar data, publicly-available participant data, meeting transcripts, and working documents) should all be made available in open data formats. It is vital that the development of the IGF's online platform be adequately resourced. Even so, it would only incur a small fraction of the expense of the annual meeting, and need not be elaborate: for example, in other Internet governance institutions, participants are encouraged to join mailing lists, whereas most IGF participants are never offered that opportunity. Whilst individual stakeholders have attempted to provide community-based platforms for the IGF in the past, these have not been supported or publicised by the Secretariat. They should be, and where appropriate could be adopted officially. Management structure The Secretariat and the MAG conceived as a programme committee, are not sufficient high level structures for the IGF. In particular the reappointment of a Special Advisor as Chair is important to provide a charismatic public face for the IGF as well as a formal interface with the United Nations system and other high-level stakeholder representatives. A Special Advisor will also make it easier to attract funding for the event, and to provide leadership as the IGF undergoes necessary changes. There is no warrant for the MAG to be limited to the role of a programme committee, as it is now. It is also important for a multi-stakeholder committee of the IGF to perform substantive tasks such as: liaising with external bodies including national and regional IGFs (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(c)); defining orphan issues and other areas in need of research, deliberation or recommendation; preparing or approving balanced briefing materials on issues to be addressed by the IGF; assessing the extent of consensus reached on proposed IGF outputs presented at a main session; reviewing and ensure the accountability of all fora involved in Internet governance (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(i)); establishing ad hoc working groups; and preparing an annual report. For some of these tasks, it may be that smaller working groups of the larger MAG could perform them more efficiently than the full MAG. For others, the more organisational tasks should be offloaded to the Secretariat, allowing the MAG to perform more of a steering and oversight role. The MAG representatives should be appointed directly by the stakeholder groups without the intermediation of the UN Secretary General. Whilst the involvement of the UN was important to bootstrap the fledgling IGF, it can now stand on its own two feet and appoint its own representatives, through processes devolved to the stakeholder groups themselves. This should incorporate a formal rotational process, with some commonly agreed upon methods and criteria for stakeholder group appointments. Consultations should be held on the issue of whether the existing stakeholder groups recognised in the Tunis Agenda remain adequate today. Funding A more flexible mechanism for funding the IGF is needed. The terms and conditions on which UN DESA accepts contributions to the IGF are unfavourable to donors, they lack transparency, and also limit the ability of participants to contribute small sums. There is no reason why a pool of funding separate to that administered by UN DESA could not be set up and administered transparently by a multi-stakeholder working group under the MAG's oversight. Host country agreements should be made public, and host countries should be permitted to open tenders for non-security-essential services publicly, rather than being required to take these from UN DESA. If there are any further remarks please let me know, otherwise I'll put it up for endorsements on 1 February and we can submit it with those endorsements by 10 February. Thanks! -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 13:20:46 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 13:20:46 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5BIRPCoalition=5D_=5Bgovernance?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5D_Meeting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_between_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <97BC0C58-03AF-43DE-A9D0-EEE6C36CED89@afrinic.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> <97BC0C58-03AF-43DE-A9D0-EEE6C36CED89@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Who is "/1net steercom" reps pls? On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can > attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. > > - a. > On 2014-01-07, at 20:35 PM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > > + 1 on Joana's email. And since Joana and Laura were part of the > temporary CS liaison appointees for the 1Net back in the IGF, and since > they are in Brazil, it is crucial to have them in the meeting. I expect > that Adiel, who will be in this meeting, agree and support that. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > Dear Glaser, > > > > Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the > steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the next planning > meetings? > > > > At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives in the > various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at least representatives > from international civil society should attend such meetings to report back > to it's constituencies. > > > > As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now trying > to create some legitimacy for this network by electing it's representatives > for the steering/coordination committee, I think that at least enabling > elected representatives for 1net to attend and report back should be a way > forward to start opening up the planing process while the Br committees are > not formed yet. IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this > process. > > > > all the best > > > > joana > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > Joana Varon Ferraz > > @joana_varon > > researcher > > Center for Technology and Society > > Fundação Getulio Vargas > > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser > wrote: > > > > URGENT INFORMATION/CLARIFICATION > > > > Dear All, > > > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, > between the > > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out > relevant details > > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of > the meeting's > > committees. > > > > > > This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's > process, > > since > > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the > nominations from all > > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > > > Thanks for your support. > > > > > > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > > > > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IRP mailing list > > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carolina Rossini > > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > > Open Technology Institute > > New America Foundation > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Jan 28 12:05:15 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (JCN Global) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:05:15 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> <8ABEF8F8-0927-4795-87DA-8FA4248B3C3F@istaff.org> <20140128011211.1543F2136B1@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <0DC26EBD-367D-455A-8A84-2F8CB0E71492@theglobaljournal.net> John, Le 28 janv. 2014 à 02:58, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 27, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote: > >> John; >> let phrase the things differently for you to understand. Most in the world do not trust the Internet establishment anymore and this is for us a *problem*. You are part of this establishment and you tell us, "I either, but we have a solution".. > > Interesting perspective... I hadn't quite realized that the trust issues (that > stem with pervasive surveillance) have extended to the various non-governmental > Internet institutions. If I may, it is time to realize it > > There is quite a bit of irony if that is the case, but perception is reality in > such matters and can be tricky at times. Agree. Your perception, my perception, anyone's perception... > >> 1. people are suspicious because they do not trust you as competent enough since you people have built and manage the current situation, and you do not have implement your solution. > > Could you rephrase the above? I understand "not trusted as competent", but > the reasoning that follows doesn't make sense to me. Specifically, what is > "the current situation" that we built to which you refer? IT seems so easy for you to understand the rude language of Pisanty, and more difficult to get view of others who do not share your approach, and reading of events and facts. If you have no idea of the current situation (over the last two years at least, then, what are you looking at?) I am in despair for you. Just kidding. > >> 2. but they are ready to frienrly listen to you. And you say nothing. You use multiloaded words: globalization, MSism, equal footing, a semantic arsenal If they question you, you respond: "define your alternative" They have none: they have you and your solutions as a problem. . > > Actually, we don't have any solutions... one would hope that we can collaborate > on mutually acceptable solutions on this 1net discuss mailing list. 1net has no legitimacy at all (which one has it, apart from being funded by ICANN? Do you think that ICANN should have put a little bit more money into the IGF? Even Saint Amour back in December said the I* needed to give funding to the IGF - to calm it maybe?. I would disagree with both Michel and you over the fact that there are no alternative. There are other options. At least I can see two of them. You will be informed soon enough, and the dialogue might start again, but not under a strict control and ruling by the I* and their Asymmetrics priests whether Cerf, Pisanty or any other. But again, as I wrote in my post it is really difficult to collaborate with a group of people refusing to have common definitions, refusing to acknowledge that the game has been biased for sometime. It seems like there is no honest desire to come a neutral table for a discussion to deliver something else than what the I* and Asymmetrics are expecting. A no-concession approach in diplomacy drives no where, and ruins the last drop of trust. > >> Why not to start with a few information on the /1net site, explaining the meaning of the words you use. > > Excellent idea; I believe that is a very good step in problem solving and hopefully can > be done as either as general terms of reference or in individual problem statements as > they are developed. As soon as we enter your 'game', you get your smile back! Interesting. In Michel suggestion, I do understand that he does not understand clearly what is 1net about? A problem for anyone to feel confident to enter that arena. BUt if we accept and say : "Let's go and seat on an equal footing basis to a 1net table…" then we might see how ready and open you are to find a new IG model. Haven't you the impression that we have seen enough sterile thinking from the Asymmetrics. Think of Pisanty and his radicalism. He is at war, and you understand it, right? 1net is another fluffy bizzarerie, among many others the Asymmetrics have invented to keep the imbalance in place. > >>> We are not in Brazil; we are on the 1net "governance" list discussing models for improving Internet governance, >> >> Frankly, this list has no other interest than to prepare Sao Paulo because it may still more negatively impact the situation. No one is interested in the evolution of a vulnerable internet governance before one has decided of the evolution of the internet itself. > > That would appear to be fundemental impasse, as your assertion would imply that > there is no reason to work on any Internet problems via this 1net mailing list, yet > the mailing list is specifically about working collaboratively on Internet problems. During the first High Level panel in London organized by ICANN, the Brazil summit was of very little concern to many participants from the feedback I have from at least two participants. CI won't give my source on this but I am very positive. Chehadé and others have only in mind the next stages of the WSIS where they see the real danger coming from (International law). And it seems, again from an observing point of view, that on a political level, this is the right way to go. Give Rousseff a little shine about her Internet Governance and plan to run data privacy in Brazil (even though a digital iron-wall seems a little help if you keep the current architecture of Internet as it is today),; and an exit to her UN speec). > >>> and to my knowledge participation on the list on completely equal footing to all. If you feel otherwise, I'd ask that you point this out immediately. >> >> Ah ... the "equal footing" is not in governing or in designing the internet, it is on discussing them on this list! >> Now I understand the qui pro quo. > > Designing the Internet? The Internet is the result of many Internet service providers > all collaborating to provide services which together have more value than apart... I am > uncertain what aspects of "designing the Internet" you feel should be part of Internet > governance - if you wish to design Internet services, you should become an Internet > service provider and/or participate in the IETF protocol development work. A bit surprise to read this. Architecture of Internet? You need help on this? Not you! Designing the Internet is clear to many, and to you as well. To keep ONE Internet has a direct impact on business and surveillance. Both are fully related to the designing of Internet. See previous emails in the lists. Again, and again, the way you answer to these emails show (and we might sound more or less the same to you) that you are reluctant to envisage a completely different setting. Going after the middle countries - the stupid ones who didn't know what to think of Internet Governance back in Dubai, is a way of thinking that sounds a bit awkward to me, specially from someone like Chehadé. Germany, Turkey… and others would be middle countries, that could easily be pushed into a pro MS asymmetric game, well, well, that is to be seen. You are underestimating the fact that the 'world' as Cheahadé put it, might already felt so down on your approach that if you do not accept to deeply change your thinking, you will be responsible for getting Internet a divided, fragmented, and untrusted world. BY the way, in my first email regarding the present conversation, I spotted at least one concrete idea. It seems again, that you were not able to pick it up. Too bad you seems to be blind to alternative. JC > > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Jan 28 14:17:11 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:17:11 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <0DC26EBD-367D-455A-8A84-2F8CB0E71492@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> <8ABEF8F8-0927-4795-87DA-8FA4248B3C3F@istaff.org> <20140128011211.1543F2136B1@smtp2.arin.net> <0DC26EBD-367D-455A-8A84-2F8CB0E71492@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <50C43B92-086D-43F6-89D9-516D1C5ECC41@istaff.org> On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:05 PM, JCN Global wrote: > Le 28 janv. 2014 à 02:58, John Curran a écrit : >> Actually, we don't have any solutions... one would hope that we can collaborate >> on mutually acceptable solutions on this 1net discuss mailing list. > 1net has no legitimacy at all (which one has it, apart from being funded by ICANN? Do you think that ICANN should have put a little bit more money into the IGF? Even Saint Amour back in December said the I* needed to give funding to the IGF - to calm it maybe?. Legitimacy for what purpose? 1net is a perfectly legitimate discussion forum; one suitable for working on problems and solutions, and it can be one of many such forums. The value of a solution is in the merit of its arguments, not based on number or flavor of endorsements; if you seek a forum where the solutions are evaluated based on political support or representation, I'd look elsewhere. > I would disagree with both Michel and you over the fact that there are no alternative. There are other options. At least I can see two of them. You will be informed soon enough, and the dialogue might start again, but not under a strict control and ruling by the I* and their Asymmetrics priests whether Cerf, Pisanty or any other. Excellent... I look forward to reading your proposals, when and whereever they may appear. If there is value in them, perhaps they will gain support. > But again, as I wrote in my post it is really difficult to collaborate with a group of people refusing to have common definitions, refusing to acknowledge that the game has been biased for sometime. It seems like there is no honest desire to come a neutral table for a discussion to deliver something else than what the I* and Asymmetrics are expecting. Actually, I would welcome common definitions... please suggest some either as a baseline or as part of the draft problem statement that George proposed. > A no-concession approach in diplomacy drives no where, and ruins the last drop of trust. "Approach to diplomacy"? This posting must have been intended for some list other than the discuss at 1net.org list, as this discuss list is about working on problems and solutions, not negotiation, posturing, or diplomacy. >>> Why not to start with a few information on the /1net site, explaining the meaning of the words you use. >> >> Excellent idea; I believe that is a very good step in problem solving and hopefully can >> be done as either as general terms of reference or in individual problem statements as >> they are developed. > > As soon as we enter your 'game', you get your smile back! Interesting. In Michel suggestion, I do understand that he does not understand clearly what is 1net about? A problem for anyone to feel confident to enter that arena. BUt if we accept and say : "Let's go and seat on an equal footing basis to a 1net table…" then we might see how ready and open you are to find a new IG model. Haven't you the impression that we have seen enough sterile thinking from the Asymmetrics. Think of Pisanty and his radicalism. He is at war, and you understand it, right? 1net is another fluffy bizzarerie, among many others the Asymmetrics have invented to keep the imbalance in place. If you believe such, then feel free not to participate and/or work in another forum (and if you send me an invite, I might even join in that discussion if I can meaningfully contribute) >> Designing the Internet? The Internet is the result of many Internet service providers >> all collaborating to provide services which together have more value than apart... I am >> uncertain what aspects of "designing the Internet" you feel should be part of Internet >> governance - if you wish to design Internet services, you should become an Internet >> service provider and/or participate in the IETF protocol development work. > A bit surprise to read this. Architecture of Internet? You need help on this? Not you! Designing the Internet is clear to many, and to you as well. To keep ONE Internet has a direct impact on business and surveillance. Both are fully related to the designing of Internet. See previous emails in the lists. > > Again, and again, the way you answer to these emails show (and we might sound more or less the same to you) that you are reluctant to envisage a completely different setting. Going after the middle countries - the stupid ones who didn't know what to think of Internet Governance back in Dubai, is a way of thinking that sounds a bit awkward to me, specially from someone like Chehadé. Germany, Turkey… and others would be middle countries, that could easily be pushed into a pro MS asymmetric game, well, well, that is to be seen. If that is your desire, then go forth. I actually have no desire to "push" anyone (particularly not countries) into any particularly direction. I (and many others on this list) _do_ want to try to further explore some of the current challenges in Internet governance. > BY the way, in my first email regarding the present conversation, I spotted at least one concrete idea. It seems again, that you were not able to pick it up. Too bad you seems to be blind to alternative. Wonderful. Perhaps once we have a problem statement, you would be so kind as to restate your proposed solution/alternative and the reasoning supporting it? Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Jan 28 16:34:25 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:34:25 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Carol, thanks! Please see some comments below: On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Will this committee prepare any content for the meeting? --> You mean > inputs? The group discussed that a synthesis of all contributions should be > produced. I need others to confirm, but I think it should be produced by > the Secretariat. It was also mentioned, but not decided, that it would be > useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were > produced before the event, serving as a starting point to help discussions. > But, as I said, we did not discuss it further. The website says that EMC is > responsible for the treatment of the proposals from participants. > > Is there any group on the Brazil side working on principles? --> I don't > know. I am only aware of what Mathew and others are working on. Adam made a > suggestion during the meeting to ask assistance from third parties (mostly > organizations that produced the principles) to produce a synthesis > document. Maybe he can explain it better. > Will the submissions be available in the website after being done for > consultation by other stakeholders? --> Yes > > What will this or other committee do with the submissions? --> Please see > the answer to the first question. > Hugs M > > C > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the >> meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based >> on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement >> them. >> >> >> >> General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was >> cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with >> discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and >> finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the >> room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam >> reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. >> >> >> >> Regarding the substantive agenda: >> >> >> >> *1. **Work Plan of EMC* >> >> - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed >> that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote >> participation will be available. >> >> - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to >> the website >> >> - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary >> >> - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion >> in-between meetings and calls >> >> >> >> *2. April Meeting agenda (main topics)* >> >> - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the >> agenda >> >> - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more >> to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. >> >> >> >> *3. Participation criteria* >> >> - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality >> and flexibility >> >> - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical >> limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, >> because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on >> the table (see the section "venue" below). But a viable figure seems to be >> between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder >> groups. >> >> - The meeting will have like a "pre-registration". Individuals will >> register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their >> institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with >> the theme. >> >> - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of >> individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of "slots" >> allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people >> among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers >> will be able to attend. >> >> - If "over-registration" happens with relation to any stakeholder group, >> some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for >> selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation >> from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. >> But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if >> needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. >> >> - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not >> fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space >> to minimize a problem "over-registration" of another stakeholder group. >> >> - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. >> Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These >> dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to >> assess the scenario). >> >> - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. >> >> >> >> Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly >> asked and responded: >> >> >> >> - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and >> contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? >> à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all >> outcomes. >> >> - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The >> organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was >> informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG >> related meetings are discussing this topic. >> >> - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not >> EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and >> participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will >> be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. >> >> >> >> *4) Public consultation* >> >> obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I >> was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed >> something >> >> >> >> - Inputs will be provided through the website >> >> - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda >> item. Not yet defined) >> >> - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be >> proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on >> institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. >> >> - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of >> inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the >> website) >> >> - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in >> the website >> >> - All contributions will be treated equally >> >> - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can >> others please confirm?) >> >> - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy >> reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? - can others >> confirm?) >> >> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on >> principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The >> drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants >> would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a >> multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. >> Further discussion is needed. >> >> >> >> *5. Meeting format/meeting agenda* >> >> - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split >> the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some >> other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic >> tentative schedule was drafted today. >> >> >> >> Day 1: >> >> 9:00-11:00 - Opening ceremony >> >> 11:30-13:00 - Principles >> >> 14:00-16:00 - Frameworks >> >> 16:30-18:00 - principles >> >> >> >> Day 2: >> >> 9:00 - 11:00 - Frameworks >> >> 11:30 - 13:00 - Principles >> >> 14:00 - 16:00 - panel discussion (focus tbd) >> >> 16:00 - 18:00 - conclusions/adoption/outcomes >> >> >> >> Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to >> give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among >> different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some "air" to evolve. >> >> >> >> *6. Wrap-up, Next steps* >> >> Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic >> was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. >> >> >> >> *Venue:* >> >> - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just >> become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels >> around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. >> Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is >> negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information >> on that is coming soon. >> >> - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to >> the event (a "day zero"). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at >> this moment. >> >> - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables >> for flyers, publications and similar. >> >> >> >> One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to >> work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, >> and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the >> members. Really something to be improved. >> >> >> >> Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. >> >> Marília >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Jan 28 23:39:43 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 23:39:43 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <20140129023259.DF2D621369C@smtp2.arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <3DA5742A-2BC3-4B36-A51B-B96CA345C1AD@istaff.org> <8ABEF8F8-0927-4795-87DA-8FA4248B3C3F@istaff.org> <20140128011211.1543F2136B1@smtp2.arin.net> <0DC26EBD-367D-455A-8A84-2F8CB0E71492@theglobaljournal.net> <50C43B92-086D-43F6-89D9-516D1C5ECC41@istaff.org> <20140129023259.DF2D621369C@smtp2.arin.net> Message-ID: <2F26C8FD-5531-4AD5-80D5-83E5A855F610@istaff.org> On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Michel Gauthier wrote: > At 20:17 28/01/2014, John Curran wrote: >> Legitimacy for what purpose? 1net is a perfectly legitimate discussion forum; >> one suitable for working on problems and solutions, and it can be one of many >> such forums. > > A discussion forum does not usually organizes ministerial level meetings. Agreed - my description above was with respect to "1net" and its legitimacy as a discussion forum; I was not referring to any other role. >> The value of a solution is in the merit of its arguments, not based on number or >> flavor of endorsements; > > Wrong. RFC 6852 what counts is the acceptation by the market. Actually, 1net should determine its own standard for determination of a good solution, but it you if want that to be RFC 6852, then so be it: Per RFC 6852: "...Standards that: • are chosen and defined based on technical merit, as judged by the contributed expertise of each participant;" (i.e. very similar to the "merit" criteria I stated above) > John, this is something difficult. However sympathetic you may be: you are the problem. People use it because there is no other possibility but they have lost trust in you (11 CEOs) and in your technology. I know: you have not endorsed OpenStand. There is most probably a good reason for that: you do not trust it either? For clarity, ARIN did not endorse the Open Stand platform, predominantly because when the opportunity to participate presented itself, there was insufficient time for consideration of this particular statement of principles and implications by the ARIN community. Note also that "not endorsing" does not equate to rejecting the Open Stand principles; it simply means that they have not been brought before the ARIN community for consideration at this time. >> If you believe such, then feel free not to participate and/or work in another forum (and if >> you send me an invite, I might even join in that discussion if I can meaningfully contribute) > > This "list" has hijacked the preparation of Sao Paulo. It seems normal that it reflects the debate that its members wanted and will most probably not get there by lack of time. At least the meeting conclusion should reflect everyone position, on an equal footing basis. Is that still correct? No idea; you should ask such questions to the Sao Paulo meeting organizers. >> If that is your desire, then go forth. I actually have no desire to "push" anyone (particularly >> not countries) into any particularly direction. I (and many others on this list) _do_ want to >> try to further explore some of the current challenges in Internet governance. > > What is strange enough is your lack of consideration of Internet technical changes that could affect what is to be governed. A substantial part of the informed people in the world want the IG to change as a consequence of a preliminary technological improvement. > > What do you respond to people saying you: "we do not trust you, we do not trust your machines, we do not trust your proposition we do not understand"? I would ask for more explanation, since "we do not trust your proposition we do not understand" doesn't really let me understand either. >> Wonderful. Perhaps once we have a problem statement, you would be so kind as to restate >> your proposed solution/alternative and the reasoning supporting it? > > I feel that (if I look at the number and the origin of the mails) the problem is the decrease of interest in something unable to document what it is, where it comes from, what it targets and to commit? Sorry, I was trying to bit more specific, and asking that folks assist in the problem definition and solution development that George Sadowsky has started on this list. Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Jan 29 00:22:58 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:22:58 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Request for input: draft text calling for CS input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities Message-ID: Dear all, As you may be aware, negotiations over the modalities for the overall WSIS review are resuming at the UN General Assembly in NY. After failing to reach an agreement by their deadline in December, the General Assembly decided to appoint two co-facilitators to convene open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall WSIS review (A/C.2/68/L.73-attached). It was recently announced that the co-facilitators are *Finland* and *Tunisia*. UNGA has until the end of March to adopt a new resolution finalizing the modalities for the WSIS review. As you might remember, there was an earlier draft of the resolution introduced by the G77 (A/C.2/68/L.40- attached), which called for the formation of an inter-governmental preparatory committee to set the agenda, finalize the outcome documents, and decide on modalities of participation of other stakeholders (OP22) for a 10-year review summit (OP21). This proved to be too controversial which is in a large part why it was decided to continue the negotiating. (See Sam Dickinson's post for more info: http://linguasynaptica.com/unga-68-ict4d-resolution/) Given the approach that the draft resolution initially took, I am writing to see if there is interest developing a joint letter to the co-facilitators to communicate a desire by members of civil society to engage in the overall review process and establish concrete mechanisms for contributions. My sense is that if there is an opportunity to do so it is now, while governments are negotiating the modalities. I drafted some points that could serve as the basis for a joint letter (see below) with input from a few people who have been following the WSIS review process, including the small group (Matthew, Lea, Joana, and myself) that worked on some initial analysis of the early draft of the ICT4D resolution (attached). The goal of this letter is to demonstrate an interest and willingness of CS to engage in the WSIS review process now, and have the opportunity to help shape the outcome from the beginning. * We're very interested in your thoughts on this draft and would welcome feedback, suggested edits, etc. by the end of your day Monday, 3 February*. If there's support, it would be great to post the final letter on the Best Bits website for endorsement next week. Here's the draft text: Your Excellencies, We are writing as members of civil society deeply engaged in Internet governance and ICT for development issues. Some/many of us have been engaged in this field since the inception of WSIS. At the outset, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as co-facilitators of the General Assembly's open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society. We feel strongly that all stages of the overall WSIS review process should be open to all interested stakeholders, and as members of global civil society would welcome the opportunity to input into these informal consultations . The modalities for the overall review must embody the spirit of WSIS and the progress that has been made since 2005, as exemplified in the various multi-stakeholder processes such as the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the WSIS High Level Event and the UNESCO WSIS+10 Review Event, but also the Internet Governance Forum, the Working Group on Internet Governance, the Working Group on IGF improvements, and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. We envision an overall WSIS review that renews and revives commitment to the Geneva principles' vision of a "people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society", is rooted in the international human rights framework, and builds on the achievements and addresses the challenges experienced in the 10 years since WSIS. Additionally, we believe that the overall WSIS review should seek to find synergies and synchronicities with the post-2015 development agenda, and in this context we would encourage the development of more concrete, measurable targets relating to ICTs and development. To conclude, we consider it critical that the modalities of the overall WSIS review take into account the viewpoints of all stakeholders and establish concrete mechanisms for civil society to channel its contributions, including through remote participation. Therefore, we, as members of global civil society, are keen to input into the informal consultations that you are facilitating and look forward to engaging more formally in the preparatory process to the overall review. Sincerely, xx Kind regards, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WSIS UNGA resolution Initialanalysis.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 382588 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: A:C.2:68:L.40 .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 69413 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: A:C.2:68:L.73 ICT4D res.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 63786 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 29 01:27:10 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:27:10 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <416B8453-982D-4BD7-8E14-D0682C58B020@glocom.ac.jp> On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Carol, thanks! Please see some comments below: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Will this committee prepare any content for the meeting? --> You mean inputs? The group discussed that a synthesis of all contributions should be produced. I need others to confirm, but I think it should be produced by the Secretariat. It was also mentioned, but not decided, that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event, serving as a starting point to help discussions. But, as I said, we did not discuss it further. The website says that EMC is responsible for the treatment of the proposals from participants. > > Is there any group on the Brazil side working on principles? --> I don't know. I am only aware of what Mathew and others are working on. Adam made a suggestion during the meeting to ask assistance from third parties (mostly organizations that produced the principles) to produce a synthesis document. Maybe he can explain it better. > Mentioned during the meeting on Monday, but still to be discussed in detail by the exec committee. For principles I suggested a dual approach. Work's been done by many stakeholders, bringing in many perspectives, there seem to be about 25 such statements. Jeremy's made a list of most, and we should add to that (see below). Suggested (1) There should be an open consultation. Comments to be based around the existing proposals, perhaps ask people to comment on the various principles statements and identify those that should be in a universal statement. See if consensus around some aspects emerges. If new principles are proposed, fine, but don't actively seek more. (2) Invite the authors (organizations) of the statements to work together in drafting a set of universal principles. See what consensus they can reach. A session on multistakeholder principles at the Bali IGF (see chair's paper ) brought together a few of the groups and they said yes when asked if they'd work together to develop a coherent set. So looks like this approach possible. Jeremy's list: Add President Rousseff's speech to the UN GA Necessary and proportionate and Carl Bildt's Seoul speech (both spoken of favorably in Bali.) Community informatics statement Marco Civil should be consider if it passes and if Brazil wants it there. What's missing from above? (I am not subscribed to cone-elist at net-equality.org, no archive I can see, so not cc'd Please forward if useful.) Adam > Will the submissions be available in the website after being done for consultation by other stakeholders? --> Yes > > What will this or other committee do with the submissions? --> Please see the answer to the first question. > > Hugs > M > > C > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > > This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. > > > General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. > > > Regarding the substantive agenda: > > > 1. Work Plan of EMC > > - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. > > - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website > > - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary > > - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls > > > 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics) > > - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda > > - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. > > > 3. Participation criteria > > - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility > > - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. > > - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. > > - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. > > - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. > > - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. > > - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). > > - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. > > > Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: > > > - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. > > - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. > > - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. > > > 4) Public consultation > > obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something > > > - Inputs will be provided through the website > > - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) > > - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. > > - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) > > - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website > > - All contributions will be treated equally > > - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) > > - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) > > - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. > > > > 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda > > - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. > > > Day 1: > > 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony > > 11:30-13:00 – Principles > > 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks > > 16:30-18:00 – principles > > > Day 2: > > 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks > > 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles > > 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) > > 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes > > > Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. > > > 6. Wrap-up, Next steps > > Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. > > > Venue: > > - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. > > - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. > > - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. > > > One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. > > > Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. > > Marília > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 29 01:32:51 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:32:51 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting Message-ID: Could our civil society MAG members confirm the dates of the meeting. The IGF website: 19-22 February 2014 (Wednesday to Saturday). Is that correct? Or are the dates Feb 19 = open consultation. Feb 20 = MAG meeting? The last few meetings have been dominated by the MAG, little consideration given to the "consultation" part. Discussion on te MAG list now -- see archives -- suggests the same pattern. A lot of excitement about topics that must be discussed, etc, etc. My understanding of the purpose of these meetings is for the MAG to listen, at least for one day. MAG is not an executive, it's there to listen to stakeholder input and reflect that in the agenda of the IGF. And this is made harder by what is perhaps indifference of MAG members to encouraging contributions from their stakeholders, at least on the IGC and bestbits lists. All have just been reappointed for the linkages they bring to their communities. The MAG now holds regular teleconferences. Could MAG members inform us when these meetings are taking place, share the agenda and seek comments. Thanks, Adam From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Jan 29 01:58:04 2014 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:58:04 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My understanding is that there is one meeting, an open MAG meeting, which is being held on 19-20 February. The past model of an open consultation followed by a closed meeting has been dropped, giving us a single, 2-day open meeting. Of course the conduct and chairing need to be inclusive, but I hope that this new model helps to overcome perceptions that MAG members are "indifferent to their stakeholders". Paul. On 29/01/2014, at 4:32 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Could our civil society MAG members confirm the dates of the meeting. The IGF website: 19-22 February 2014 (Wednesday to Saturday). Is that correct? Or are the dates Feb 19 = open consultation. Feb 20 = MAG meeting? > > The last few meetings have been dominated by the MAG, little consideration given to the "consultation" part. > > Discussion on te MAG list now -- see archives -- suggests the same pattern. A lot of excitement about topics that must be discussed, etc, etc. My understanding of the purpose of these meetings is for the MAG to listen, at least for one day. MAG is not an executive, it's there to listen to stakeholder input and reflect that in the agenda of the IGF. And this is made harder by what is perhaps indifference of MAG members to encouraging contributions from their stakeholders, at least on the IGC and bestbits lists. All have just been reappointed for the linkages they bring to their communities. > > The MAG now holds regular teleconferences. Could MAG members inform us when these meetings are taking place, share the agenda and seek comments. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 03:45:30 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:45:30 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Request for input: draft text calling for CS input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <054b01cf1cce$77a02b60$66e08220$@gmail.com> Since this letter appears to be presented as being on behalf of "CS" (as a whole) I believe that the Community Informatics community would be interested in helping to "develop. a joint letter to the co-facilitators". I would also draw your attention to my detailed comments to what appears to have been an earlier version of the "Initialanalysis" document which does not seem to have been taken notice of in the updated version. Nor, I should add, have I/we been invited to comment on any of the updated versions of the analysis. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Deborah Brown Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:23 PM To: Subject: [bestbits] Request for input: draft text calling for CS input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities Dear all, As you may be aware, negotiations over the modalities for the overall WSIS review are resuming at the UN General Assembly in NY. After failing to reach an agreement by their deadline in December, the General Assembly decided to appoint two co-facilitators to convene open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall WSIS review (A /C.2/68/L.73-attached). It was recently announced that the co-facilitators are Finland and Tunisia. UNGA has until the end of March to adopt a new resolution finalizing the modalities for the WSIS review. As you might remember, there was an earlier draft of the resolution introduced by the G77 (A/C.2/68/L.40- attached), which called for the formation of an inter-governmental preparatory committee to set the agenda, finalize the outcome documents, and decide on modalities of participation of other stakeholders (OP22) for a 10-year review summit (OP21). This proved to be too controversial which is in a large part why it was decided to continue the negotiating. (See Sam Dickinson's post for more info: http://linguasynaptica.com/unga-68-ict4d-resolution/) Given the approach that the draft resolution initially took, I am writing to see if there is interest developing a joint letter to the co-facilitators to communicate a desire by members of civil society to engage in the overall review process and establish concrete mechanisms for contributions. My sense is that if there is an opportunity to do so it is now, while governments are negotiating the modalities. I drafted some points that could serve as the basis for a joint letter (see below) with input from a few people who have been following the WSIS review process, including the small group (Matthew, Lea, Joana, and myself) that worked on some initial analysis of the early draft of the ICT4D resolution (attached). The goal of this letter is to demonstrate an interest and willingness of CS to engage in the WSIS review process now, and have the opportunity to help shape the outcome from the beginning. We're very interested in your thoughts on this draft and would welcome feedback, suggested edits, etc. by the end of your day Monday, 3 February. If there's support, it would be great to post the final letter on the Best Bits website for endorsement next week. Here's the draft text: Your Excellencies, We are writing as members of civil society deeply engaged in Internet governance and ICT for development issues. Some/many of us have been engaged in this field since the inception of WSIS. At the outset, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as co-facilitators of the General Assembly's open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society. We feel strongly that all stages of the overall WSIS review process should be open to all interested stakeholders, and as members of global civil society would welcome the opportunity to input into these informal consultations . The modalities for the overall review must embody the spirit of WSIS and the progress that has been made since 2005, as exemplified in the various multi-stakeholder processes such as the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the WSIS High Level Event and the UNESCO WSIS+10 Review Event, but also the Internet Governance Forum, the Working Group on Internet Governance, the Working Group on IGF improvements, and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. We envision an overall WSIS review that renews and revives commitment to the Geneva principles' vision of a "people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society", is rooted in the international human rights framework, and builds on the achievements and addresses the challenges experienced in the 10 years since WSIS. Additionally, we believe that the overall WSIS review should seek to find synergies and synchronicities with the post-2015 development agenda, and in this context we would encourage the development of more concrete, measurable targets relating to ICTs and development. To conclude, we consider it critical that the modalities of the overall WSIS review take into account the viewpoints of all stakeholders and establish concrete mechanisms for civil society to channel its contributions, including through remote participation. Therefore, we, as members of global civil society, are keen to input into the informal consultations that you are facilitating and look forward to engaging more formally in the preparatory process to the overall review. Sincerely, xx Kind regards, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WSIS UNGA resolution Initialanalysis.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 382588 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Gurstein Response to Digital Partners et al Document on WSIS +10 Resolution.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 29858 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 05:17:37 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:17:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> Hi I just checked with Chengetai. Paul’s explanation is correct and the website will be updated. BTW, what the IGF website doesn’t show is that the host government has expressed a desire to move the meeting forward to 19-22 August. Sticking it during high vacation season in the Northern hemisphere would not be good for turn-out, which in turn would not be good for the UN renewal debate when the usual long knives may be out. It also would be a real problem for the preparatory process, and apparently for national/regional IGFs. Markus has sent a letter to DESA on behalf of concerned MAG members asking that the UN reaffirm to the host its preference for the original deal. Best Bill On Jan 29, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > My understanding is that there is one meeting, an open MAG meeting, which is being held on 19-20 February. > > The past model of an open consultation followed by a closed meeting has been dropped, giving us a single, 2-day open meeting. > > Of course the conduct and chairing need to be inclusive, but I hope that this new model helps to overcome perceptions that MAG members are "indifferent to their stakeholders". > > Paul. > > > > > On 29/01/2014, at 4:32 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Could our civil society MAG members confirm the dates of the meeting. The IGF website: 19-22 February 2014 (Wednesday to Saturday). Is that correct? Or are the dates Feb 19 = open consultation. Feb 20 = MAG meeting? >> >> The last few meetings have been dominated by the MAG, little consideration given to the "consultation" part. >> >> Discussion on te MAG list now -- see archives -- suggests the same pattern. A lot of excitement about topics that must be discussed, etc, etc. My understanding of the purpose of these meetings is for the MAG to listen, at least for one day. MAG is not an executive, it's there to listen to stakeholder input and reflect that in the agenda of the IGF. And this is made harder by what is perhaps indifference of MAG members to encouraging contributions from their stakeholders, at least on the IGC and bestbits lists. All have just been reappointed for the linkages they bring to their communities. >> >> The MAG now holds regular teleconferences. Could MAG members inform us when these meetings are taking place, share the agenda and seek comments. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 *********************************************** From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Jan 7 14:01:42 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:01:42 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] link: website for brmeeting Message-ID: FYI: the website for the br meeting is now online: http://brmeeting.br "The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of the global community will be established." best joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 10:02:55 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:02:55 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] notes from meeting with FADI in DC Message-ID: Dear all, here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. They also mentioned new websites: * learn.icann.org * labs.icann.org * new.icann.org And for contact: Chris Mondini Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have complementary notes. Best, Carol "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of "who run the internet" up in the agenda of countries around the world. Fadi is 1 1/2 in. Mandates are of 3 years. The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure questions are answered. ICANN is also creating "engagement centers" around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia. "Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at the global level." Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am think this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of public responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use that money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help him develop this strategy. An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. Fadi affirms he can help with platform and costs. Civil society representatives need more strength - ICANN can support costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at every meeting. They are on "equal" footing. Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, Novack, etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), operation (execution of the plan). Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that the head of states IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls the Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that function and have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one led by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying ICANN is mature enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature enough ... and we need a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best Bits meeting and it was a great truth meeting. He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all functions. And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger civil society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website" -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 10:10:50 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:10:50 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Dear all, > > here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. > > They also mentioned new websites: > * learn.icann.org > * labs.icann.org > * new.icann.org > > And for contact: Chris Mondini > > Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have complementary notes. > > Best, > > Carol > > > "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. > > Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of “who run the internet” up in the agenda of countries around the world. > > > Fadi is 1 ½ in. Mandates are of 3 years. > > > > The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure questions are answered. ICANN is also creating “engagement centers” around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia. > > > > “Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at the global level.” > > > > Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. > > > > ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am think this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of public responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use that money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help him develop this strategy. > > > > An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. Fadi affirms he can help with platform and costs. > > > > Civil society representatives need more strength – ICANN can support costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at every meeting. They are on “equal” footing. > > > > Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. > > > > PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, Novack, etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), operation (execution of the plan). > > > > Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that the head of states > > > > IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls the Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that function and have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one led by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying ICANN is mature enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature enough … and we need a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best Bits meeting and it was a great truth meeting. > > > > He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all functions. And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger civil society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. > > > > We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. > > > > March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website" > > > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 10:17:32 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:17:32 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <67438239-7E2F-4BE4-B2AB-6E49642916CF@gmail.com> The incomplete phrase below regarding race - Fadi feels ICANN is in a race to present an alternative model, so countries do not take bad decisions at the ITU Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Carolina wrote: > > And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. >> >> They also mentioned new websites: >> * learn.icann.org >> * labs.icann.org >> * new.icann.org >> >> And for contact: Chris Mondini >> >> Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have complementary notes. >> >> Best, >> >> Carol >> >> >> "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. >> >> Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of “who run the internet” up in the agenda of countries around the world. >> >> >> Fadi is 1 ½ in. Mandates are of 3 years. >> >> >> >> The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure questions are answered. ICANN is also creating “engagement centers” around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia. >> >> >> >> “Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at the global level.” >> >> >> >> Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. >> >> >> >> ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am think this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of public responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use that money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help him develop this strategy. >> >> >> >> An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. Fadi affirms he can help with platform and costs. >> >> >> >> Civil society representatives need more strength – ICANN can support costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at every meeting. They are on “equal” footing. >> >> >> >> Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. >> >> >> >> PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, Novack, etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), operation (execution of the plan). >> >> >> >> Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that the head of states >> >> >> >> IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls the Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that function and have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one led by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying ICANN is mature enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature enough … and we need a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best Bits meeting and it was a great truth meeting. >> >> >> >> He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all functions. And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger civil society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. >> >> >> >> We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. >> >> >> >> March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website" >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 10:25:51 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:25:51 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <85EA74FE-23A4-4061-B356-610E8867FB46@gmail.com> hi Carolina, Thanks for those notes and updates and what was the context of this meeting? Btw Chris mondini main task is to engage business, there is no specific staff for civil society :). Best, Rafik Le 30 Jan 2014 à 00:10, Carolina a écrit : > And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. >> >> They also mentioned new websites: >> * learn.icann.org >> * labs.icann.org >> * new.icann.org >> >> And for contact: Chris Mondini >> >> Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have complementary notes. >> >> Best, >> >> Carol >> >> >> "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. >> >> Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of “who run the internet” up in the agenda of countries around the world. >> >> >> Fadi is 1 ½ in. Mandates are of 3 years. >> >> >> >> The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure questions are answered. ICANN is also creating “engagement centers” around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia. >> >> >> >> “Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at the global level.” >> >> >> >> Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. >> >> >> >> ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am think this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of public responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use that money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help him develop this strategy. >> >> >> >> An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. Fadi affirms he can help with platform and costs. >> >> >> >> Civil society representatives need more strength – ICANN can support costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at every meeting. They are on “equal” footing. >> >> >> >> Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. >> >> >> >> PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, Novack, etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), operation (execution of the plan). >> >> >> >> Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that the head of states >> >> >> >> IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls the Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that function and have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one led by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying ICANN is mature enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature enough … and we need a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best Bits meeting and it was a great truth meeting. >> >> >> >> He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all functions. And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger civil society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. >> >> >> >> We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. >> >> >> >> March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website" >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Jan 29 10:56:36 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:56:36 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: > Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it. JC - Regarding the scope of your hypothetical "supreme international body" (which is apparently your proposed solution to the present situation) - are you advocating that there be treaty body to establish "Law of the Internet" as opposed to recognition of the applicability of existing international norms to actions that now take place over the Internet? i.e. "Internet" Human Rights distinct from Human Rights, "Internet" Personal Privacy distinct from Personal Data Privacy rights, "Internet" Diplomatic law rather than Vienna Diplomatic relations, etc.? The Internet is a communications medium, and while it may have unique aspects, I am trying to discern whether that is the limit of the scope of your hypothetical supreme international body or whether it is something greater. Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 10:56:41 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 10:56:41 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: <85EA74FE-23A4-4061-B356-610E8867FB46@gmail.com> References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> <85EA74FE-23A4-4061-B356-610E8867FB46@gmail.com> Message-ID: Well, it seems he will growth on his position until this group of social responsability figures out their next steps, but we can clarify Chirs is also moving to DC. No bigger context to the meeting besides dialogue. They just called folks from civil society and think tanks in DC to meet, since Fadi was here to speak at STON C. On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Rafik wrote: > hi Carolina, > > Thanks for those notes and updates and what was the context of this > meeting? > Btw Chris mondini main task is to engage business, there is no specific > staff for civil society :). > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > Le 30 Jan 2014 à 00:10, Carolina a écrit : > > And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights > framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any > principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > Dear all, > > here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I > tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. > > They also mentioned new websites: > * learn.icann.org > * labs.icann.org > * new.icann.org > > And for contact: Chris Mondini > > Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have complementary > notes. > > Best, > > Carol > > > "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. > > Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of "who run the internet" up in > the agenda of countries around the world. > > > > Fadi is 1 1/2 in. Mandates are of 3 years. > > > > The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very > western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. > They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure > questions are answered. ICANN is also creating "engagement centers" > around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of > excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and > entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia. > > > > "Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at the > global level." > > > > Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. > > > > ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am think > this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of public > responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use that > money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help him > develop this strategy. > > > > An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in Rio. > Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. Fadiaffirms he can help with platform and costs. > > > > Civil society representatives need more strength - ICANN can support > costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at > every meeting. They are on "equal" footing. > > > > Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of > governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. > > > > PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort > should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a > picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second > phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. > Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, Novack, > etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), > operation (execution of the plan). > > > > Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, > synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that > the head of states > > > > IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls the > Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the > oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. > Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that function > and have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one led > by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying ICANN is > mature enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature enough ... and > we need a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best Bits meeting and > it was a great truth meeting. > > > > He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all functions. > And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger civil > society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other > country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. > > > We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come > together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, > hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. > > > March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website" > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 29 11:29:05 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:29:05 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [summit] Stream 3: Deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52E867DA.70408@ciroap.org> <8C37B569-FA15-42A3-83F0-761F21B34609@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Just speaking for myself, not in anyway for one of the committee you're considering sending this to. Don't worry too about signatures and process. The list's open, I read it as do others. Keep ideas coming. Ask us to share with the exec committee and it will be. And as the process for contributions opens up, send there again if it seems useful to do so. I don't see much value in words about the IGF -- just more words that get in the way of the positive. The ideas about participation good, using new platforms (if we can, right now not very clear on the opportunities and potential limitations.) About "Whilst it has been claimed that it will be impossible..." I don't remember anyone saying the meeting would be limited in such a way. Example, Marilia's notes of the exec committee meeting: > - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. > Looking at outcomes of various types. Considering how the outcomes might be in some agreed form. Don't think anyone at this time is trying to limit the meeting to only IGF-type talk. Trying to find a purpose. Advice on such things and how to reach agreed/shared outcomes would be helpful. One question -- on one hand recommending the use of new tools. On the other recommend the use of tried and tested tools and techniques. What am I missing? Adam (speaking for myself) On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:51 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > I support this, well stated Jeremy. My suggestion would be to get some initial agreement that reflects the diversity of our community -- it need not be a huge number of signatories; you could then send it and put it out to the BestBits list for additional signatories. I believe we've used that approach successfully in the past. Thanks for pulling this together! > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Thanks for the support and ideas on this. As time is at a premium, can we agree to send a note such as this one below to our representatives on the EC for discussion there? It incorporates the points made by Carolina and Joana, as well as my earlier points. > > To: Executive Multistakeholder Committee, cc: Logistics and Organizational Committee > > When the Brazil meeting was officially announced, it was stated that "The purpose of that meeting is to pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." This objective will not be achieved without adopting specific procedures that can facilitate both the development of such consensus, and its accurate measurement. > > Whilst the IGF operates within certain constraints inherited from the UN system and has been reluctant to experiment with such procedures, there are no similar constraints on the Brazil meeting. Indeed, Brazil has an admirable track record in this regard, having proposed innovative online collaboration mechanisms for the 2007 Rio IGF meeting (though these were never fully utilised), and more recently in the launch of the edemocracia.camara.gov.br portal that was utilised in the development of the Marco Civil. > > In this spirit, we wish to offer some suggestions on the procedures to be adopted by the meeting that can facilitate purposeful deliberation and help to narrow down the meeting's conclusions on both governance principles and on changes to the institutional framework. In general these suggestions are examples of mechanisms of deliberative democracy, which is a field dedicated to producing decisions that reflect the informed deliberations of a diverse group of affected stakeholders. Rather than just consultation, we could call this "participation 2.0". > Whatever mechanisms are used to facilitate this should work online and offline, or at least the online and offline mechanisms should be mutually supportive and well integrated. > For online deliberation, the edemocracia.camara.gov.br portal could be adapted for use in a multi-lingual version, that would allow proposals to be opened for comment so that they could be refined and improved in advance of the Brazil meeting. Alternatively, there are other online tools that offer even more flexibility in turning discussions into well-informed consensus outcomes, such as AthenaBridge (athenabridge.com). This would be far more useful and a better use of resources than merely allowing the upload of static PDF files. > Similarly for the meeting in São Paulo, there should not simply be a parade of speeches such as we are used to hearing at IGF plenary sessions, but rather a very actively facilitated process that is designed to distill the ideas of those present into a manageable set of proposals, to expose those proposals to reasoned deliberation, and to assess their acceptability to a diverse group of stakeholders. Just one of the techniques that can be used to accomplish this is called Dotmocracy (dotmocracy.org). > Whilst it has been claimed that it will be impossible for the Brazil meeting to offer more than an opportunity for discussion rather than to provide solutions (and a similar claim has frequently been made about the IGF), we believe that this assumption should be challenged. In fact there is much evidence from large scale deliberative democratic processes already carried out around the world, that even a large meeting such as that planned for Brazil can produce useful outcomes that reflect a broad and well-informed consensus. > Such successful outcomes will require proper facilitation and the use of tried and tested tools and techniques. We therefore encourage you to make these tools and techniques a central feature of the Brazil meeting and its preparatory processes. Experts in deliberative democratic theory and practice, in both online and offline modes, could also be consulted as necessary where gaps in the committee's own expertise may exist.. > > As it is just an informal note I don't think that this necessarily needs to be done as a Best Bits signon statement... but do people think it should be? In any case, once we're happy with the note, I would copy it to the main Best Bits list. > > On 29/01/14 12:06, Carolina wrote: >> I strongly think we should pressure for participation "2.0". The platforms are there. If we do not want to reinvent the wheel, we could even open a special section from the edemocracia.camara.gov.br portal. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> I think its very nice and that we need indeed to use technology to be able to have a more effective way to collect ideas and opinions about them. I was a bit disappointed that after the experience of the collaborative process for Marco Civil the website for the meeting asks for pdfs as collaboration o.0 I'm glad to see that they are still thinking about other forms too. >>> >>> In that sense, I think organization would welcome proposals from this stream about this and the moment is now, as they are setting the website. Plus, it would be much more difficult to try to propose the usage of tools like this on UN processes. >>> >>> I agree with Jeremy that democracy is not limited anymore by the issues that lead us to the "social contract" for representative democracy and that technology could help. >>> >>> Having said that, we should be aware about trolls... they will always be there to illegitimate these tools. For instance, in our public consultation for the copyright reform, that used the same platform as marco civil, the copyright industry hired or fostered that people against it should be publishing comments trolling the reform. later we figured that a lots of comments in that sense came from the same IP (dumb troll). :) >>> >>> we could propose to them to use tools like this as betta tests as well. What would you need to do so, Jeremy? Shall we start testing any of these considering, for instance, the outputs from our discussion on principles asap? >>> >>> all the best. >>> >>> joana >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 29/01/14 10:15, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >>>> These may be fine ideas. But I think our first priority ought to be to put good policy ideas forward for all stakeholders to embrace. If we do that, I'm confident many process and inclusiveness issues can be addressed. >>> >>> I don't think it's either-or. We divided into there streams so that streams 1 and 2 could put forward the good policy ideas, and stream 3 could make recommendations on process. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list summit at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list summit at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list summit at lists.bestbits.net > > For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list summit at lists.bestbits.net > > For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 29 11:48:01 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:48:01 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [summit] Stream 3: Deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52E867DA.70408@ciroap.org> <8C37B569-FA15-42A3-83F0-761F21B34609@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <81EC012E-08A7-4AF7-A07B-843D1902E145@glocom.ac.jp> oops... eating dinner and typing, bad mix: On Jan 30, 2014, at 1:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Just speaking for myself, not in anyway for one of the committee you're considering sending this to. > > Don't worry too much > about signatures and process. The list's open, I read it as do others. Keep ideas coming. Ask us to share with the exec committee and it will be. And as the process for contributions opens up, send there again if it seems useful to do so. > > I don't see much value in words about the IGF -- just more words that get in the way of the positive. > > The ideas about participation good, using new platforms (if we can, right now not very clear on the opportunities and potential limitations.) > > About "Whilst it has been claimed that it will be impossible..." I don't remember anyone saying the meeting would be limited in such a way. Example, Marilia's notes of the exec committee meeting: > >> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. >> > > Looking at outcomes of various types. Considering how the outcomes might be in some agreed form. Don't think anyone at this time is trying to limit the meeting to only IGF-type talk. Trying to find a purpose. Advice on such things and how to reach agreed/shared outcomes would be helpful. > > One question -- on one hand recommending the use of new tools. On the other recommend the use of tried and tested tools and techniques. What am I missing? > > Adam (speaking for myself) > > > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:51 PM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > >> I support this, well stated Jeremy. My suggestion would be to get some initial agreement that reflects the diversity of our community -- it need not be a huge number of signatories; you could then send it and put it out to the BestBits list for additional signatories. I believe we've used that approach successfully in the past. Thanks for pulling this together! >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Thanks for the support and ideas on this. As time is at a premium, can we agree to send a note such as this one below to our representatives on the EC for discussion there? It incorporates the points made by Carolina and Joana, as well as my earlier points. >> >> To: Executive Multistakeholder Committee, cc: Logistics and Organizational Committee >> >> When the Brazil meeting was officially announced, it was stated that "The purpose of that meeting is to pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." This objective will not be achieved without adopting specific procedures that can facilitate both the development of such consensus, and its accurate measurement. >> >> Whilst the IGF operates within certain constraints inherited from the UN system and has been reluctant to experiment with such procedures, there are no similar constraints on the Brazil meeting. Indeed, Brazil has an admirable track record in this regard, having proposed innovative online collaboration mechanisms for the 2007 Rio IGF meeting (though these were never fully utilised), and more recently in the launch of the edemocracia.camara.gov.br portal that was utilised in the development of the Marco Civil. >> >> In this spirit, we wish to offer some suggestions on the procedures to be adopted by the meeting that can facilitate purposeful deliberation and help to narrow down the meeting's conclusions on both governance principles and on changes to the institutional framework. In general these suggestions are examples of mechanisms of deliberative democracy, which is a field dedicated to producing decisions that reflect the informed deliberations of a diverse group of affected stakeholders. Rather than just consultation, we could call this "participation 2.0". >> Whatever mechanisms are used to facilitate this should work online and offline, or at least the online and offline mechanisms should be mutually supportive and well integrated. >> For online deliberation, the edemocracia.camara.gov.br portal could be adapted for use in a multi-lingual version, that would allow proposals to be opened for comment so that they could be refined and improved in advance of the Brazil meeting. Alternatively, there are other online tools that offer even more flexibility in turning discussions into well-informed consensus outcomes, such as AthenaBridge (athenabridge.com). This would be far more useful and a better use of resources than merely allowing the upload of static PDF files. >> Similarly for the meeting in São Paulo, there should not simply be a parade of speeches such as we are used to hearing at IGF plenary sessions, but rather a very actively facilitated process that is designed to distill the ideas of those present into a manageable set of proposals, to expose those proposals to reasoned deliberation, and to assess their acceptability to a diverse group of stakeholders. Just one of the techniques that can be used to accomplish this is called Dotmocracy (dotmocracy.org). >> Whilst it has been claimed that it will be impossible for the Brazil meeting to offer more than an opportunity for discussion rather than to provide solutions (and a similar claim has frequently been made about the IGF), we believe that this assumption should be challenged. In fact there is much evidence from large scale deliberative democratic processes already carried out around the world, that even a large meeting such as that planned for Brazil can produce useful outcomes that reflect a broad and well-informed consensus. >> Such successful outcomes will require proper facilitation and the use of tried and tested tools and techniques. We therefore encourage you to make these tools and techniques a central feature of the Brazil meeting and its preparatory processes. Experts in deliberative democratic theory and practice, in both online and offline modes, could also be consulted as necessary where gaps in the committee's own expertise may exist.. >> >> As it is just an informal note I don't think that this necessarily needs to be done as a Best Bits signon statement... but do people think it should be? In any case, once we're happy with the note, I would copy it to the main Best Bits list. >> >> On 29/01/14 12:06, Carolina wrote: >>> I strongly think we should pressure for participation "2.0". The platforms are there. If we do not want to reinvent the wheel, we could even open a special section from the edemocracia.camara.gov.br portal. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 9:43 PM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> I think its very nice and that we need indeed to use technology to be able to have a more effective way to collect ideas and opinions about them. I was a bit disappointed that after the experience of the collaborative process for Marco Civil the website for the meeting asks for pdfs as collaboration o.0 I'm glad to see that they are still thinking about other forms too. >>>> >>>> In that sense, I think organization would welcome proposals from this stream about this and the moment is now, as they are setting the website. Plus, it would be much more difficult to try to propose the usage of tools like this on UN processes. >>>> >>>> I agree with Jeremy that democracy is not limited anymore by the issues that lead us to the "social contract" for representative democracy and that technology could help. >>>> >>>> Having said that, we should be aware about trolls... they will always be there to illegitimate these tools. For instance, in our public consultation for the copyright reform, that used the same platform as marco civil, the copyright industry hired or fostered that people against it should be publishing comments trolling the reform. later we figured that a lots of comments in that sense came from the same IP (dumb troll). :) >>>> >>>> we could propose to them to use tools like this as betta tests as well. What would you need to do so, Jeremy? Shall we start testing any of these considering, for instance, the outputs from our discussion on principles asap? >>>> >>>> all the best. >>>> >>>> joana >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> On 29/01/14 10:15, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >>>>> These may be fine ideas. But I think our first priority ought to be to put good policy ideas forward for all stakeholders to embrace. If we do that, I'm confident many process and inclusiveness issues can be addressed. >>>> >>>> I don't think it's either-or. We divided into there streams so that streams 1 and 2 could put forward the good policy ideas, and stream 3 could make recommendations on process. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list summit at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>>> @joana_varon >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list summit at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list summit at lists.bestbits.net >> >> For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list summit at lists.bestbits.net >> >> For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list summit at lists.bestbits.net > > For list archives, member roster, unsubscription and other functions visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/summit > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 29 12:11:04 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (JCN Global) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:11:04 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> Message-ID: <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> Do not be so impatient to jump at new ideas with guns and pistols! Still I am happy to elaborate a bit on a small part of it, as many other things have to be taken in consideration here. ;-) It seems like you have some difficulty with the word 'legitimacy'. You might also have trouble to make a difference between 'norms' and 'policies'. Beyond norms and standards, there are other words that do embed values and principles. Norms and standards are for many of them technically oriented if not technically or voluntary biased. We all know that the architecture of the ONE Internet we know today was set on purpose with 'holes' that were part of a grand design - no conspiracy thinking please. Just a technical setting that reflected a political will at the time. Any technician would have considered this 'hole' has an imperfection, but this same imperfection was there on purpose - Tech is not that neutral, it often comes with a 'policy'. Even though that is not my best bet, I was wondering if the technical community of the Internet - on a broad scope - would find it that difficult to connect 2 Internets to each other. Or 3 Internet to each other. In other words, I was wondering about a Multinet, if the designing (or change of grand design) of a ONE Internet has reached its limits for giving way to a fair 'Law of the Internet'. I am sure than all the smart e-minds around would not find it that difficult, neither very expansive. Again, this is not my best bet to have 2, 3, 4… Internet. Just wondering. Eli Noam and others find it inevitable. I think you do remember the video conversation you guys had all together few months ago. That being said, I do not buy straight up the idea that a MULTINET would create so much frictions and increase costs for doing business, a concern Chehadé is now raising to push the US companies into some form of compromise about IG. Cheahdé, as a good player would do, has asked the Boston Consulting Group to bring some arguments against a MULTINET. This has to be debate in the open, and in details. According to you John, is 'Privacy' a norm or a standard? I don't see it that way. If it was so, why does Vint Cerf explains with his usual sense of 'Star Wars' humor, that privacy does not exist anymore? "Why do you guys bother about it?" Indeed he belongs to the Asymmetrics that do not have any specific consideration for 'privacy'. His business (Google's) is to exploit our privacy for the need of advertisers. Google is being copied by many, so far never been equalized or overpassed. Google did so well, that they made a fortune out of violating our privacy, destroying by the same token many independent media that suddenly were not able to compete in the face of advertisers. Good for Google though. Google brought many other tools and norms to the world, but it was not without huge returns for itself. You know that around the world there are different perceptions of privacy and the way law can consider that 'our' data, including metadata belong to each one of us. Regarding Internet Human Rights, please bring to the table any serious professor of law, knowing a bit of what are human rights, and see what he thinks of digital human rights. Sorry we have some good ones here in GENEVA. Have we got per say, "Print Human RIghts", or 'Phone Human Rights", or "Traveling Human Rights". Human rights cover all aspects of rights without consideration of the 'vehicle'. With the UN Human Rights charter, you already have all what you need to get anyone condemn for infringement of human rights over the Internet whether you take Freedom of expression, or any other sort of violation. You could argue that the UN could put up a case against all the big corporation that are violating 'privacy' of billion. The Human Right Council should be a good venue for this. The expression of Internet Human Rights comes from where? From my observation it came out of the US State Department. Alec Ross whom I interviewed before he quitted his job as Senior Digital Advisor to Secretary Clinton had a smile hearing my question about these 'rights' . He confessed on the record me that these Internet or Digital Human rights did not exist but that the expression was getting 'support' as you said earlier. Again, this support is very questionable, as we don't know who are the supporters, if they represent more than themselves, and, at the end of the day, if they have any legitimacy. Privacy is not specific to so-called Internet Human Rights. Privacy is an hold asset to human rights. Norms and standards are 'applicable', but do you understand "applicable" in the technical sense meaning 'doable'? Or 'applicable' in the sense of law, meaning possibly enforced with the intervention of justice and police force. These are complete different ideas. Law, national and international are part of the IG debate, and so far the Asymmetrics have managed to escape them. Law would be the ultimate villain. Law and governments. This has to come to an end, when you consider spamming, surveillance, cyberwar... I see the technical community as people enjoying the 'no-limit' game, or no-boundaries game. A 'Law of the Internet' would call for respect of values, common values, and not just norms and standards. This is one of the few points where the gap or divide between the current holders of an asymmetric IG are not ready to go. History will prove them that they are wrong by confusing norms/standards and values/law. All of them have to come together. And that requires much more TRUST, LEGITIMACY. Think about it John, this is only a DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGE. Asymmetrics have to accept a global demand to introduce DEMOCRACY back in the game, not just a phony 'equal footing' norm or standard, that clearly means nothing to any honest Democrat. JC Le 29 janv. 2014 à 16:56, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global wrote: > >> Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it. > > JC - > > Regarding the scope of your hypothetical "supreme international body" (which is apparently your > proposed solution to the present situation) - are you advocating that there be treaty body to establish > "Law of the Internet" as opposed to recognition of the applicability of existing international norms > to actions that now take place over the Internet? > > i.e. "Internet" Human Rights distinct from Human Rights, "Internet" Personal Privacy distinct > from Personal Data Privacy rights, "Internet" Diplomatic law rather than Vienna Diplomatic > relations, etc.? > > The Internet is a communications medium, and while it may have unique aspects, I am trying to > discern whether that is the limit of the scope of your hypothetical supreme international body > or whether it is something greater. > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 12:19:46 2014 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:19:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] February 19-20 open consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> References: <8BB454BA-AEFA-4870-8D1F-A6D95F1F58C6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3D7D68B7-27A0-4F27-ADDF-50E9531D78C4@gmail.com> If I am correct, the upcoming IGF is in Turkey, I think the political situation might stay a bit volatile and the IGF may actually face some delays unfortunately if unrest erupts again. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Jan 29, 2014, at 3:17 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I just checked with Chengetai. Paul’s explanation is correct and the website will be updated. > > BTW, what the IGF website doesn’t show is that the host government has expressed a desire to move the meeting forward to 19-22 August. Sticking it during high vacation season in the Northern hemisphere would not be good for turn-out, which in turn would not be good for the UN renewal debate when the usual long knives may be out. It also would be a real problem for the preparatory process, and apparently for national/regional IGFs. Markus has sent a letter to DESA on behalf of concerned MAG members asking that the UN reaffirm to the host its preference for the original deal. > > Best > > Bill > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > >> My understanding is that there is one meeting, an open MAG meeting, which is being held on 19-20 February. >> >> The past model of an open consultation followed by a closed meeting has been dropped, giving us a single, 2-day open meeting. >> >> Of course the conduct and chairing need to be inclusive, but I hope that this new model helps to overcome perceptions that MAG members are "indifferent to their stakeholders". >> >> Paul. >> >> >> >> >> On 29/01/2014, at 4:32 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Could our civil society MAG members confirm the dates of the meeting. The IGF website: 19-22 February 2014 (Wednesday to Saturday). Is that correct? Or are the dates Feb 19 = open consultation. Feb 20 = MAG meeting? >>> >>> The last few meetings have been dominated by the MAG, little consideration given to the "consultation" part. >>> >>> Discussion on te MAG list now -- see archives -- suggests the same pattern. A lot of excitement about topics that must be discussed, etc, etc. My understanding of the purpose of these meetings is for the MAG to listen, at least for one day. MAG is not an executive, it's there to listen to stakeholder input and reflect that in the agenda of the IGF. And this is made harder by what is perhaps indifference of MAG members to encouraging contributions from their stakeholders, at least on the IGC and bestbits lists. All have just been reappointed for the linkages they bring to their communities. >>> >>> The MAG now holds regular teleconferences. Could MAG members inform us when these meetings are taking place, share the agenda and seek comments. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > *********************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 2 04:13:11 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 17:13:11 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52C52DA7.30000@ciroap.org> This is a reminder to put forward your names for selection for the Brazil meeting committees by midnight UTC 7 January 2014, per the procedure given below. Regarding the draft selection criteria originally posted, a few others were raised on this list, of which one had fairly wide support, that "the nominee brings in perspectives/ representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes, and demonstrate existing linkages and work in this regard" (but the comment was also made that this should not be applied to give undue weight to minority views). The arguments for and against this additional criterion have been well ventilated and the coordinating group will take what it can from this discussion. Surprisingly though we haven't actually had too many actual names put forward as nominees for the two committees (I have received a couple privately, but it is much better that they are discussed on the list, so that support for the names can be gauged). So please do take the opportunity over the next few days to put your name or someone else's forward, if you would like to give input into the composition of the groups. Thanks. On 22/12/13 13:31, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on > Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 > and 24 2014. > > > > > > *• Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC)* > > > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > of the > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > success. > > > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > > > • *Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC)* > > > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > including: defining > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > > > > > > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is *midnight > UTC* 7 * January 2014 > *. > > > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a > statement of relevant background and experience to jeremy at ciroap.org > or by replying to this thread. At the > closing date for nominations, those submitted to various civil society > networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co > ordination Group. > > > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > or both. > > > > > > CRITERIA > > > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > suitability of candidates > > > > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your > individual civil society organisation(s) > > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report > back as the process progresses > > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of > civil society perspectives on these issues > > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > > > *Explanation of process* > > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the > most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to > other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of > the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this > process. > > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to > consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 17:13:49 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:13:49 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon Message-ID: Dear Best Bits colleagues, I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) Best to all, Carolina -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Jan 29 12:45:47 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:45:47 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Request for input: draft text calling for CS input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities In-Reply-To: <054b01cf1cce$77a02b60$66e08220$@gmail.com> References: <054b01cf1cce$77a02b60$66e08220$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Mike, See comments below. *From:* "michael gurstein" *Date:* January 29, 2014 at 3:45:30 AM EST *To:* "'Deborah Brown'" , < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> *Subject:* *RE: [bestbits] Request for input: draft text calling for CS input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities* Since this letter appears to be presented as being on behalf of "CS" (as a whole) I believe that the Community Informatics community would be interested in helping to "develop... a joint letter to the co-facilitators". Great that the Community Informatics community would be interested in helping. To clarify, the intention is not to speak on behalf of CS "as a whole" but rather whoever signs it. I think this can be rather easily fixed by inserting "the undersigned" in a few places and I would welcome your suggestions to improve it further if it's still not clear. I would also draw your attention to my detailed comments to what appears to have been an earlier version of the "Initialanalysis" document which does not seem to have been taken notice of in the updated version. Nor, I should add, have I/we been invited to comment on any of the updated versions of the analysis. Thanks for sending your detailed comments. I found this feedback very useful, especially with regards to the need for a serious/independent review and to channel feedback from the grassroots level. To clarify, the analysis I sent yesterday was the same document circulated initially in November. Because it became clear that the review issue was taken off the table for the time being (bc of and time constraints) we never managed to update the document, but very much looking forward to your comments on this draft text. M All the best, Deborah *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Deborah Brown *Sent:* Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:23 PM *To:* *Subject:* [bestbits] Request for input: draft text calling for CS input into negotiations on WSIS+10 modalities Dear all, As you may be aware, negotiations over the modalities for the overall WSIS review are resuming at the UN General Assembly in NY. After failing to reach an agreement by their deadline in December, the General Assembly decided to appoint two co-facilitators to convene open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall WSIS review (A /C.2/68/L.73-attached). It was recently announced that the co-facilitators are *Finland* and *Tunisia*. UNGA has until the end of March to adopt a new resolution finalizing the modalities for the WSIS review. As you might remember, there was an earlier draft of the resolution introduced by the G77 (A/C.2/68/L.40- attached), which called for the formation of an inter-governmental preparatory committee to set the agenda, finalize the outcome documents, and decide on modalities of participation of other stakeholders (OP22) for a 10-year review summit (OP21). This proved to be too controversial which is in a large part why it was decided to continue the negotiating. (See Sam Dickinson's post for more info: http://linguasynaptica.com/unga-68-ict4d-resolution/) Given the approach that the draft resolution initially took, I am writing to see if there is interest developing a joint letter to the co-facilitators to communicate a desire by members of civil society to engage in the overall review process and establish concrete mechanisms for contributions. My sense is that if there is an opportunity to do so it is now, while governments are negotiating the modalities. I drafted some points that could serve as the basis for a joint letter (see below) with input from a few people who have been following the WSIS review process, including the small group (Matthew, Lea, Joana, and myself) that worked on some initial analysis of the early draft of the ICT4D resolution (attached). The goal of this letter is to demonstrate an interest and willingness of CS to engage in the WSIS review process now, and have the opportunity to help shape the outcome from the beginning. * We're very interested in your thoughts on this draft and would welcome feedback, suggested edits, etc. by the end of your day Monday, 3 February*. If there's support, it would be great to post the final letter on the Best Bits website for endorsement next week. Here's the draft text: Your Excellencies, We are writing as members of civil society deeply engaged in Internet governance and ICT for development issues. Some/many of us have been engaged in this field since the inception of WSIS. At the outset, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as co-facilitators of the General Assembly's open intergovernmental consultations to finalize the modalities for the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society. We feel strongly that all stages of the overall WSIS review process should be open to all interested stakeholders, and as members of global civil society would welcome the opportunity to input into these informal consultations . The modalities for the overall review must embody the spirit of WSIS and the progress that has been made since 2005, as exemplified in the various multi-stakeholder processes such as the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the WSIS High Level Event and the UNESCO WSIS+10 Review Event, but also the Internet Governance Forum, the Working Group on Internet Governance, the Working Group on IGF improvements, and the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. We envision an overall WSIS review that renews and revives commitment to the Geneva principles' vision of a "people-centred, inclusive, development-oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society", is rooted in the international human rights framework, and builds on the achievements and addresses the challenges experienced in the 10 years since WSIS. Additionally, we believe that the overall WSIS review should seek to find synergies and synchronicities with the post-2015 development agenda, and in this context we would encourage the development of more concrete, measurable targets relating to ICTs and development. To conclude, we consider it critical that the modalities of the overall WSIS review take into account the viewpoints of all stakeholders and establish concrete mechanisms for civil society to channel its contributions, including through remote participation. Therefore, we, as members of global civil society, are keen to input into the informal consultations that you are facilitating and look forward to engaging more formally in the preparatory process to the overall review. Sincerely, xx Kind regards, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Jan 29 12:57:04 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:57:04 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <31C80A78-B613-4DF2-B4A1-F4A53155466B@istaff.org> On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:11 PM, JCN Global wrote: > Do not be so impatient to jump at new ideas with guns and pistols! Still I am happy to elaborate a bit on a small part of it, as many other things have to be taken in consideration here. > > ;-) Excellent (and I by no means intended to "ambush" you; I was simply trying to understand your proposal and reasoning) > It seems like you have some difficulty with the word 'legitimacy'. I have no difficulty with the word legitimacy, but I do believe that any group of folks can collectively work on problems with "legitimacy" - that is inherent to rights of free movement and association. Concerns about "legitimacy" of any voluntary and open discussion is misplaced, as the outcomes themselves are ideas to be freely picked up (or not) and used (or not) via voluntarily mechanisms. To my knowledge, any proposed solutions developed by 1net are no more binding on anyone than solutions from Best Bits, IGF, or or any topical seminar. Now, if you are talking about parties who intend to make mandatary choices on behalf of others, then the use of words like legitimacy, representation and equity become particularly important (but such binding outcomes do not align with my understanding of 1net's role; they might be part of your "supreme international body, no?) > According to you John, is 'Privacy' a norm or a standard? I don't see it that way. If it was so, why does Vint Cerf explains with his usual sense of 'Star Wars' humor, that privacy does not exist anymore? "Why do you guys bother about it?" Indeed he belongs to the Asymmetrics that do not have any specific consideration for 'privacy'. His business (Google's) is to exploit our privacy for the need of advertisers. Google is being copied by many, so far never been equalized or overpassed. Google did so well, that they made a fortune out of violating our privacy, destroying by the same token many independent media that suddenly were not able to compete in the face of advertisers. Good for Google though. Google brought many other tools and norms to the world, but it was not without huge returns for itself. You know that around the world there are different perceptions of privacy and the way law can consider that 'our' data, including metadata belong to each one of us. EU Directive 95/46/EC is directive which specifies a now widely accepted norm. > Regarding Internet Human Rights, please bring to the table any serious professor of law, knowing a bit of what are human rights, and see what he thinks of digital human rights. Sorry we have some good ones here in GENEVA. Have we got per say, "Print Human RIghts", or 'Phone Human Rights", or "Traveling Human Rights". Human rights cover all aspects of rights without consideration of the 'vehicle'. With the UN Human Rights charter, you already have all what you need to get anyone condemn for infringement of human rights over the Internet whether you take Freedom of expression, or any other sort of violation. You could argue that the UN could put up a case against all the big corporation that are violating 'privacy' of billion. The Human Right Council should be a good venue for this. The expression of Internet Human Rights comes from where? From my observation it came out of the US State Department. Alec Ross whom I interviewed before he quitted his job as Senior Digital Advisor to Secretary Clinton had a smile hearing my question about these 'rights' . He confessed on the record me that these Internet or Digital Human rights did not exist but that the expression was getting 'support' as you said earlier. Again, this support is very questionable, as we don't know who are the supporters, if they represent more than themselves, and, at the end of the day, if they have any legitimacy. Privacy is not specific to so-called Internet Human Rights. Privacy is an hold asset to human rights. > > Norms and standards are 'applicable', but do you understand "applicable" in the technical sense meaning 'doable'? Or 'applicable' in the sense of law, meaning possibly enforced with the intervention of justice and police force. These are complete different ideas. Correct; hence my request to you regarding scope and mode of your postulated "supreme international body" > Law, national and international are part of the IG debate, and so far the Asymmetrics have managed to escape them. Law would be the ultimate villain. Law and governments. This has to come to an end, when you consider spamming, surveillance, cyberwar... > > I see the technical community as people enjoying the 'no-limit' game, or no-boundaries game. A 'Law of the Internet' would call for respect of values, common values, and not just norms and standards. It would be nice to see something perhaps more detailed, and in particular how the values being set would intersect (or not) existing institutions. I do not believe you addressed that question in your response, but will await your ongoing refinement of the idea and can discuss when it is ready. Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Jan 29 13:30:12 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:30:12 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: At 18:11 29/01/2014, JCN Global wrote: >I was wondering about a Multinet, if the designing (or change of >grand design) of a ONE Internet has reached its limits for giving >way to a fair 'Law of the Internet'. I am sure than all the smart >e-minds around would not find it that difficult, neither very >expansive. Again, this is not my best bet to have 2, 3, 4 Internet. JC, Multinet does exist. It was initally (1968/1985) Tymnet before it was strangled by the Asymetrics. It now is the internet if it is not strangled again by the same ones. The practical strength of the Internet over Tymnet is the datagram concept which makes strangulation quite impossible. The disadvantage is the lack of layer six and interpresentation system. This why enacting MS-IG starts with working on a fully distributed (at personal level) globalization of the root servers system. One easily understand that fragmentation becomes quite difficult when there is no rigisity left to fragment. Unfortunately this may make ICE (the FBI world control on the DNS, more difficult). This hardware level IANA globalization does not change the role of ICANN which still has the same mission: manage the class "IN" (ICANN/NTIA) root data. This is therefore totally conform to the Montevideo target. It also match the primary purpose of ICANN, to foster competition in the naming area, as other class root data public, private, or free providers might compete with ICANN. There should however be a need for a root data administrator enhanced cooperation to establish ethic rules, foster R&D, propose warranties to registrants, interface individual domain name owner organizations, discuss with States the IPR issues, and obviously discuss the way to mutually support the multiple identification usages and semantics of the multiples technologies. This is just an example of the potentialities that a real, non status-quo hampered, MS-IG permits to project. jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 14:10:35 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:10:35 -0800 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <31C80A78-B613-4DF2-B4A1-F4A53155466B@istaff.org> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> <31C80A78-B613-4DF2-B4A1-F4A53155466B@istaff.org> Message-ID: <07d601cf1d25$cabad0f0$603072d0$@gmail.com> John, I would refer you to the (updated?) Brazil meeting website... http://netmundial.br/ where apparently the "hosting" of the meeting has devolved to "a partnership between CGI.br and /1net". What this, combined with your words concerning the (relative lack of substantive) significance of 1net, suggests to me is that in your perception the Brazil meeting seems now to have become nothing more than a "topical seminar" of no more significance than a passing debate on the BB or Governance e-list or a rather compressed and unanchored version of the IGF. Is this correct? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:57 AM To: JCN Global Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC; Best Bits; 1Net List Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:11 PM, JCN Global wrote: > Do not be so impatient to jump at new ideas with guns and pistols! Still I am happy to elaborate a bit on a small part of it, as many other things have to be taken in consideration here. > > ;-) Excellent (and I by no means intended to "ambush" you; I was simply trying to understand your proposal and reasoning) > It seems like you have some difficulty with the word 'legitimacy'. I have no difficulty with the word legitimacy, but I do believe that any group of folks can collectively work on problems with "legitimacy" - that is inherent to rights of free movement and association. Concerns about "legitimacy" of any voluntary and open discussion is misplaced, as the outcomes themselves are ideas to be freely picked up (or not) and used (or not) via voluntarily mechanisms. To my knowledge, any proposed solutions developed by 1net are no more binding on anyone than solutions from Best Bits, IGF, or or any topical seminar. Now, if you are talking about parties who intend to make mandatary choices on behalf of others, then the use of words like legitimacy, representation and equity become particularly important (but such binding outcomes do not align with my understanding of 1net's role; they might be part of your "supreme international body, no?) > According to you John, is 'Privacy' a norm or a standard? I don't see it that way. If it was so, why does Vint Cerf explains with his usual sense of 'Star Wars' humor, that privacy does not exist anymore? "Why do you guys bother about it?" Indeed he belongs to the Asymmetrics that do not have any specific consideration for 'privacy'. His business (Google's) is to exploit our privacy for the need of advertisers. Google is being copied by many, so far never been equalized or overpassed. Google did so well, that they made a fortune out of violating our privacy, destroying by the same token many independent media that suddenly were not able to compete in the face of advertisers. Good for Google though. Google brought many other tools and norms to the world, but it was not without huge returns for itself. You know that around the world there are different perceptions of privacy and the way law can consider that 'our' data, including metadata belong to each one of us. EU Directive 95/46/EC is directive which specifies a now widely accepted norm. > Regarding Internet Human Rights, please bring to the table any serious professor of law, knowing a bit of what are human rights, and see what he thinks of digital human rights. Sorry we have some good ones here in GENEVA. Have we got per say, "Print Human RIghts", or 'Phone Human Rights", or "Traveling Human Rights". Human rights cover all aspects of rights without consideration of the 'vehicle'. With the UN Human Rights charter, you already have all what you need to get anyone condemn for infringement of human rights over the Internet whether you take Freedom of expression, or any other sort of violation. You could argue that the UN could put up a case against all the big corporation that are violating 'privacy' of billion. The Human Right Council should be a good venue for this. The expression of Internet Human Rights comes from where? From my observation it came out of the US State Department. Alec Ross whom I interviewed before he quitted his job as Senior Digital Advisor to Secretary Clinton had a smile hearing my question about these 'rights' . He confessed on the record me that these Internet or Digital Human rights did not exist but that the expression was getting 'support' as you said earlier. Again, this support is very questionable, as we don't know who are the supporters, if they represent more than themselves, and, at the end of the day, if they have any legitimacy. Privacy is not specific to so-called Internet Human Rights. Privacy is an hold asset to human rights. > > Norms and standards are 'applicable', but do you understand "applicable" in the technical sense meaning 'doable'? Or 'applicable' in the sense of law, meaning possibly enforced with the intervention of justice and police force. These are complete different ideas. Correct; hence my request to you regarding scope and mode of your postulated "supreme international body" > Law, national and international are part of the IG debate, and so far the Asymmetrics have managed to escape them. Law would be the ultimate villain. Law and governments. This has to come to an end, when you consider spamming, surveillance, cyberwar... > > I see the technical community as people enjoying the 'no-limit' game, or no-boundaries game. A 'Law of the Internet' would call for respect of values, common values, and not just norms and standards. It would be nice to see something perhaps more detailed, and in particular how the values being set would intersect (or not) existing institutions. I do not believe you addressed that question in your response, but will await your ongoing refinement of the idea and can discuss when it is ready. Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Jan 29 14:34:17 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:34:17 -0500 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <07d601cf1d25$cabad0f0$603072d0$@gmail.com> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> <31C80A78-B613-4DF2-B4A1-F4A53155466B@istaff.org> <07d601cf1d25$cabad0f0$603072d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6444FF2B-604B-4C27-BC2C-D7E0C706B0DD@istaff.org> On Jan 29, 2014, at 2:10 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > John, > ... > What this, combined with your words concerning the (relative lack of > substantive) significance of 1net, suggests to me is that in your perception > the Brazil meeting seems now to have become nothing more than a "topical > seminar" of no more significance than a passing debate on the BB or > Governance e-list or a rather compressed and unanchored version of the IGF. > > Is this correct? No. As stated before, I have no view of the Brazil meeting; I was referring solely to the role of 1net as a discussion forum, which is equivalent to any other topical seminar in terms of its legitimacy in that role. Thanks, /John Disclaimer: My views alone From matthias.kettemann at gmail.com Wed Jan 29 14:53:40 2014 From: matthias.kettemann at gmail.com (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 20:53:40 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AC561@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25AE9F8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <24AF79FB-453D-4E3E-B179-3B599350B3E1@theglobaljournal.net> <5D2EB823-1066-4FF0-B1BD-CD75D11623BC@istaff.org> <89E2D291-209B-4DBA-A3B1-742C8B5A51E6@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Just a bit from a human rights lawyer: On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:11 PM, JCN Global wrote: > According to you John, is 'Privacy' a norm or a standard? I don't see it > that way. If it was so, why does Vint Cerf explains with his usual sense of > 'Star Wars' humor, that privacy does not exist anymore? "Why do you guys > bother about it?" > That's good fun as a quote. However, it's similar to making a statement along the lines of 'After Guantánamo, the right not to be tortured doesn't exist anymore. Violations of the right to privacy took place and are taking place on the Internet. There are different conceptions as to what privacy means in the US, Europe and the rest of the world. But privacy is a right, a human right. > Regarding Internet Human Rights, please bring to the table any serious > professor of law, knowing a bit of what are human rights, and see what he > thinks of digital human rights. Sorry we have some good ones here in > GENEVA. > I know. I studied in Geneva. They would say: "digital human rights" or "human rights for the Internet" are a term used as a campaigning tool to visualize the implications of human rights for the Internet. They would point to HRC Resolution 20/8 that confirms that all offline rights apply online. > Have we got per say, "Print Human RIghts", or 'Phone Human Rights", or > "Traveling Human Rights". Human rights cover all aspects of rights without > consideration of the 'vehicle'. With the UN Human Rights charter, > There is not such a thing as the UN Human Rights Charter. You probably mean the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights can be called the Itnernational Bill of Human Rights. > you already have all what you need to get anyone condemn for infringement > of human rights over the Internet whether you take Freedom of expression, > or any other sort of violation. > The case that human rights lawyers make is not that we need a new right to freedom of expression on the Internet. The case they make is that we need to apply existing human rights to the Internet. I just published a book making this clear: Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014) . > You could argue that the UN could put up a case against all the big > corporation that are violating 'privacy' of billion. > "The UN" is not the primary actor responsible for ensuring human rights. States are. They have the duty to respect, protect and enforce human rights. Germany, for instance, should consider seriously what avenues of action are open to it due to possible violations by the Five Eyes states of international legal obligations. States also have extraterritorial human rights duties. > The Human Right Council should be a good venue for this. > No, it's not. The Human Rights Council is good place to discuss human rights on the Internet on a general level, but it is not well-equipped to quickly solve legal questions. However, all states are obliged to submit reports under the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism. States' observance of human rights of the Internet should be carefully scrutinized. > I see the technical community as people enjoying the 'no-limit' game, or > no-boundaries game. A 'Law of the Internet' would call for respect of > values, common values, and not just norms and standards. > We already have a law of the Internet in the sense that we have norms that apply to the Internet. Most of them originate in international legal sources. Customary legal duties and general principles of international law are applicable to the Itnernet. > This is one of the few points where the gap or divide between the current > holders of an asymmetric IG are not ready to go. History will prove them > that they are wrong by confusing norms/standards and values/law. All of > them have to come together. And that requires much more TRUST, LEGITIMACY. > I guess this really depends on who you talk to. Anybody with a background in law would argue that norms law is expression of the values of the community that produces the law. Norms (as in normative order) are just another name for laws. Standards are norms that are usually set my non-state actors but may be given law-like power (by laws or internaitonal law). > Think about it John, this is only a DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGE. Asymmetrics have > to accept a global demand to introduce DEMOCRACY back in the game, not just > a phony 'equal footing' norm or standard, that clearly means nothing to any > honest Democrat. > What is important to me, is to discuss how the traditional democratic legitimation within national states can be translated into settings where public authority is exercized by non-state actors or by international organizations. We need to discuss which new types of legitimacy we can conceptualize that can be applied in international settings. Kind regards Matthias > > > > JC > > > Le 29 janv. 2014 à 16:56, John Curran a écrit : > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 12:17 PM, JCN Global > wrote: > > Contrary to the idea of a disjunction and or a subset of ICANN/IANA > functions away from the US DoC, I do believe that what is most need is a > supreme international body to which stakeholders can turn themselves to in > order to have any claim brought to a truly independent body. I am more > interested to see how a 'Law of the Internet' can be taken care of by such > a body. Detaching the DoC from ICANN is indeed what is of present concern. > But refusing to take International law, as the right way to get all > national authorities signatures at the bottom of an international treaty, > is so unthinkable that I do believe the status-quoers are fully aware of > what they are doing to oppose any change. I do not see how any 'Equal > Footing' empty principle could ever bring a government to sign such a > treaty. You have been refusing this for years. It is no longer a > sustainable position. And I do suspect that you know it. > > > JC - > > Regarding the scope of your hypothetical "supreme international body" > (which is apparently your > proposed solution to the present situation) - are you advocating that > there be treaty body to establish > "Law of the Internet" as opposed to recognition of the applicability of > existing international norms > to actions that now take place over the Internet? > > i.e. "Internet" Human Rights distinct from Human Rights, "Internet" > Personal Privacy distinct > from Personal Data Privacy rights, "Internet" Diplomatic law > rather than Vienna Diplomatic > relations, etc.? > > The Internet is a communications medium, and while it may have unique > aspects, I am trying to > discern whether that is the limit of the scope of your hypothetical > supreme international body > or whether it is something greater. > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence "Normative Orders ", University of Frankfurt/Main Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, University of Graz Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, University of Graz Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) Blog | SSRN | Google Scholar | my new book | Amazon Authors' Page Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Recent publications: Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014) Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, ed.) Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, ed.) The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-edited) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 30 00:27:55 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:57:55 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52E9E2DB.6060501@itforchange.net> Thanks to Marilia and Adam for their report... A small question -- there is framing text on the meeting website seeking inputs on the IG roadmap and Internet principles... Any idea who drafted/ wrote that text. http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribution/principles Thanks parminder On Tuesday 28 January 2014 03:24 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Marilia, great notes. Not much to add. (I am not subscribed to cone-elist at net-equality.org, please forward) > > On the two topics: > > "internet governance principles" > > Agreement that a great deal of works has been done on principles, not that we now need more actual principles, but an attempt to develop a set of universal principles, to distill what we have. Some ideas about how to do this, but no clear agreement. > > "roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem" > > Issue less developed and less understood. What the particular sub-topics might be not as clear. Expecting input from the ICANN panel looking at the topic and the high-level panel. We mentioned that while the panels' input would be helpful, we did not want to defer to the work of those panels, they weren't the default content. I think now would be a good time to introduce the bestbits work on this. > > Question: how do we get from her, to some outcome on April 24? Or should we expect work to continue beyond Sao Paulo? (this is my preference.) > > BTW, I suspect the new website pages on content were intended as placeholders and not meant to go live. Checking this. Suggest everyone ignore for now. > > Date for contributions: I also had as March 1, but I found some of the conversations hard to follow (choppy and poorly mic'd room.) > > About the Transamerica Hotel: the conference facilities are available, but all rooms booked, so would mean many buses in an out from other hotels. Since making first inquires about hotels the Hyatt's become available, and as Marilia mentions has rooms and is also close to many other hotels, of different classes/cost. Local leads looking at the Hyatt as we were having our meeting. > > Seeing the meeting schedule reinforces how little time there will be. Which affects outcomes. Organizers are looking for flexibility in use of the venue later into the evening, and the Hyatt makes this possible. Looking at the possibility of an evening session on April 23 (7 to 9:30) for perhaps stakeholder meetings, perhaps regional. And if the venue can remain open late (or not close if you'd like to draft all night). Got the impression the logistics side working hard on arrangements, they are pretty experienced in holding meetings of similar type, and trying to be imaginative/helpful in arrangements. > > Adam > > > > > On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. >> >> >> General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. >> >> >> Regarding the substantive agenda: >> >> >> 1. Work Plan of EMC >> >> - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. >> >> - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website >> >> - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary >> >> - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls >> >> >> 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics) >> >> - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda >> >> - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. >> >> >> 3. Participation criteria >> >> - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility >> >> - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. >> >> - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. >> >> - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. >> >> - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. >> >> - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. >> >> - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). >> >> - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. >> >> >> Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: >> >> >> - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. >> >> - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. >> >> - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. >> >> >> 4) Public consultation >> >> obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something >> >> >> - Inputs will be provided through the website >> >> - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) >> >> - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. >> >> - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) >> >> - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website >> >> - All contributions will be treated equally >> >> - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) >> >> - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) >> >> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. >> >> >> >> 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda >> >> - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. >> >> >> Day 1: >> >> 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony >> >> 11:30-13:00 – Principles >> >> 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks >> >> 16:30-18:00 – principles >> >> >> Day 2: >> >> 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks >> >> 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles >> >> 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) >> >> 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes >> >> >> Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. >> >> >> 6. Wrap-up, Next steps >> >> Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. >> >> >> Venue: >> >> - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. >> >> - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. >> >> - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. >> >> >> One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. >> >> >> Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. >> >> Marília >> >> >> -- >> Marília Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jan 30 01:24:52 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:24:52 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: <52E9E2DB.6060501@itforchange.net> References: <52E9E2DB.6060501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder On Jan 30, 2014, at 2:27 PM, parminder wrote: > Thanks to Marilia and Adam for their report... > > A small question -- there is framing text on the meeting website seeking inputs on the IG roadmap and Internet principles... Any idea who drafted/ wrote that text. > > http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribution/principles > The exec committee. We might try to provide more detail, something we need to discuss. Adam > Thanks > > parminder > > On Tuesday 28 January 2014 03:24 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Thanks Marilia, great notes. Not much to add. (I am not subscribed to cone-elist at net-equality.org >> , please forward) >> >> On the two topics: >> >> "internet governance principles" >> >> Agreement that a great deal of works has been done on principles, not that we now need more actual principles, but an attempt to develop a set of universal principles, to distill what we have. Some ideas about how to do this, but no clear agreement. >> >> "roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem" >> >> Issue less developed and less understood. What the particular sub-topics might be not as clear. Expecting input from the ICANN panel looking at the topic and the high-level panel. We mentioned that while the panels' input would be helpful, we did not want to defer to the work of those panels, they weren't the default content. I think now would be a good time to introduce the bestbits work on this. >> >> Question: how do we get from her, to some outcome on April 24? Or should we expect work to continue beyond Sao Paulo? (this is my preference.) >> >> BTW, I suspect the new website >> >> pages on content were intended as placeholders and not meant to go live. Checking this. Suggest everyone ignore for now. >> >> Date for contributions: I also had as March 1, but I found some of the conversations hard to follow (choppy and poorly mic'd room.) >> >> About the Transamerica Hotel: the conference facilities are available, but all rooms booked, so would mean many buses in an out from other hotels. Since making first inquires about hotels the Hyatt's become available, and as Marilia mentions has rooms and is also close to many other hotels, of different classes/cost. Local leads looking at the Hyatt as we were having our meeting. >> >> Seeing the meeting schedule reinforces how little time there will be. Which affects outcomes. Organizers are looking for flexibility in use of the venue later into the evening, and the Hyatt makes this possible. Looking at the possibility of an evening session on April 23 (7 to 9:30) for perhaps stakeholder meetings, perhaps regional. And if the venue can remain open late (or not close if you'd like to draft all night). Got the impression the logistics side working hard on arrangements, they are pretty experienced in holding meetings of similar type, and trying to be imaginative/helpful in arrangements. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. >>> >>> >>> General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. >>> >>> >>> Regarding the substantive agenda: >>> >>> >>> 1. Work Plan of EMC >>> >>> - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. >>> >>> - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website >>> >>> - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary >>> >>> - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls >>> >>> >>> 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics) >>> >>> - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda >>> >>> - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. >>> >>> >>> 3. Participation criteria >>> >>> - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility >>> >>> - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. >>> >>> - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. >>> >>> - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. >>> >>> - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. >>> >>> - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. >>> >>> - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). >>> >>> - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. >>> >>> >>> Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: >>> >>> >>> - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. >>> >>> - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. >>> >>> - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. >>> >>> >>> 4) Public consultation >>> >>> obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something >>> >>> >>> - Inputs will be provided through the website >>> >>> - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) >>> >>> - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. >>> >>> - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) >>> >>> - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website >>> >>> - All contributions will be treated equally >>> >>> - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) >>> >>> - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) >>> >>> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. >>> >>> >>> >>> 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda >>> >>> - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. >>> >>> >>> Day 1: >>> >>> 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony >>> >>> 11:30-13:00 – Principles >>> >>> 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks >>> >>> 16:30-18:00 – principles >>> >>> >>> Day 2: >>> >>> 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks >>> >>> 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles >>> >>> 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) >>> >>> 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes >>> >>> >>> Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. >>> >>> >>> 6. Wrap-up, Next steps >>> >>> Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. >>> >>> >>> Venue: >>> >>> - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. >>> >>> - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. >>> >>> - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. >>> >>> >>> One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. >>> >>> >>> Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Marília Maciel >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Jan 30 03:05:30 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:05:30 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> <85EA74FE-23A4-4061-B356-610E8867FB46@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Carol. This part brought my attention: "Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days." + The addition you guys made on Human Rights and he agreed. I wonder what is the understanding...is it that there wouldnt be space to debate specific principles such as necessary and proportionate? Do we have a date for Vint's report? On 29 Jan 2014 13:56, "Carolina Rossini" wrote: > Well, it seems he will growth on his position until this group of social > responsability figures out their next steps, but we can clarify > > Chirs is also moving to DC. > > No bigger context to the meeting besides dialogue. They just called folks > from civil society and think tanks in DC to meet, since Fadi was here to > speak at STON > > C. > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Rafik wrote: > >> hi Carolina, >> >> Thanks for those notes and updates and what was the context of this >> meeting? >> Btw Chris mondini main task is to engage business, there is no specific >> staff for civil society :). >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Le 30 Jan 2014 à 00:10, Carolina a écrit : >> >> And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights >> framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any >> principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I >> tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. >> >> They also mentioned new websites: >> * learn.icann.org >> * labs.icann.org >> * new.icann.org >> >> And for contact: Chris Mondini >> >> Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have complementary >> notes. >> >> Best, >> >> Carol >> >> >> "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. >> >> Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of "who run the internet" up in >> the agenda of countries around the world. >> >> >> >> Fadi is 1 1/2 in. Mandates are of 3 years. >> >> >> >> The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very >> western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. >> They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure >> questions are answered. ICANN is also creating "engagement centers" >> around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of >> excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and >> entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia. >> >> >> >> "Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at the >> global level." >> >> >> >> Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. >> >> >> >> ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am think >> this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of public >> responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use that >> money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help him >> develop this strategy. >> >> >> >> An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in >> Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. Fadiaffirms he can help with platform and costs. >> >> >> >> Civil society representatives need more strength - ICANN can support >> costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at >> every meeting. They are on "equal" footing. >> >> >> >> Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of >> governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. >> >> >> >> PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort >> should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a >> picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second >> phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. >> Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, Novack, >> etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), >> operation (execution of the plan). >> >> >> >> Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, >> synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that >> the head of states >> >> >> >> IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls the >> Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the >> oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. >> Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that function >> and have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one led >> by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying ICANN is >> mature enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature enough ... and >> we need a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best Bits meeting and >> it was a great truth meeting. >> >> >> >> He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all functions. >> And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger civil >> society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other >> country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. >> >> >> We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come >> together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, >> hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. >> >> >> March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website" >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 30 03:09:42 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:09:42 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting Message-ID: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> For those who are not on the "summit" list, I started a thread there with suggestions on online/offline deliberation processes for the Brazil meeting. Adam Peake (one of the civil society representatives on the Executive Multistakeholder Committee of the meeting) replied and cross-posted his reply here, but in case the context wasn't clear, I'm reposting in a new thread, with amendments based on suggestions from the original thread (marked in italics). Whilst it isn't necessary in order to get the message across to the Brazil committees, there is value in allowing people to endorse this as a sign-on statement, so that's what I'm proposing we do. (After a drought of months, we will have three new sign-on statements going up at around the same time!) Please let us know of any further suggestions for changes within the next few days: To: Executive Multistakeholder Committee, cc: Logistics and Organizational Committee When the Brazil meeting was officially announced, it was stated that "The purpose of that meeting is to pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." This objective will not be achieved without adopting specific procedures that can facilitate both the development of such consensus, and its accurate measurement. /The Brazil meeting's organisers are free to experiment with such procedures, to a greater extent than the IGF which operates within some of the constraints of the UN system. Indeed, Brazil has an admirable track record in this regard, having proposed innovative online collaboration mechanisms such as edemocracia.camara.gov.br and culturadigital.br./// In this spirit, we wish to offer some suggestions on the procedures to be adopted by the meeting that can facilitate purposeful deliberation and help to narrow down the meeting's conclusions on both governance principles and on changes to the institutional framework. In general these suggestions are examples of mechanisms of deliberative democracy, which is a field dedicated to producing decisions that reflect the informed deliberations of a diverse group of affected stakeholders. Rather than just consultation, we could call this "participation 2.0". Whatever mechanisms are used to facilitate this should work online and offline, or at least the online and offline mechanisms should be mutually supportive and well integrated. For online deliberation, the edemocracia.camara.gov.br portal could be adapted for use in a multi-lingual version, that would allow proposals to be opened for comment so that they could be refined and improved in advance of the Brazil meeting. Alternatively, there are other online tools that offer even more flexibility in turning discussions into well-informed consensus outcomes, such as AthenaBridge (athenabridge.com ). This would be far more useful and a better use of resources than merely allowing the upload of /static text/. Similarly for the meeting in São Paulo, there should not simply be a parade of speeches/such as we are used to hearing at IGF plenary sessions/, but rather a very actively facilitated process that is designed to distill the ideas of those present into a manageable set of proposals, to expose those proposals to reasoned deliberation, and to assess their acceptability to a diverse group of stakeholders. Just one of the techniques that can be used to accomplish this is called Dotmocracy (dotmocracy.org ). /Whilst some have e//xpressed doubt that the //Brazil meeting will be able to provide solutions rather than merely //offering an opportunity for discussion///, we believe that this assumption should be challenged. In fact there is much evidence from large scale deliberative democratic processes already carried out around the world, that even a large meeting such as that planned for Brazil can produce useful outcomes that reflect a broad and well-informed consensus. Such successful outcomes will require proper facilitation /and the use of tools and techniques that although successfully used elsewhere, have not yet entered wide use in Internet governance./ We therefore encourage you to make these tools and techniques a central feature of the Brazil meeting and its preparatory processes. Experts in deliberative democratic theory and practice, in both online and offline modes, could also be consulted as necessary where gaps in the committee's own expertise may exist. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Lea at gp-digital.org Tue Jan 7 17:15:12 2014 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 22:15:12 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 To: Ian Peter; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon Dear Best Bits colleagues, I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) Best to all, Carolina -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Jan 30 04:31:37 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:31:37 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [ExeCom] EMC meeting report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI Sorry for crossposting ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Matthias C. Kettemann" Date: 30 Jan 2014 06:50 Subject: [IRPCoalition] Fwd: [ExeCom] EMC meeting report To: "Discussion list for GigaNet Members" , "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> Cc: Dear friends, please find attached the executive report from the Executive Committee. With executive greetings Matthias ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel Fink Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:49 PM Subject: [ExeCom] EMC meeting report To: execom at nic.br, daniel at netmundial.br Dear EMC members Following instructions from Chairs Raul Echeberria and Demi Getschko, I am sending the executive report from the 1st EMC meeting. Best regards, Daniel Fink Executive Director, NETmundial Secretariat www.netmundial.org daniel at netmundial.br _______________________________________________ Execom mailing list Execom at nic.br https://mail.nic.br/mailman/listinfo/execom -- Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence "Normative Orders ", University of Frankfurt/Main Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, University of Graz Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, University of Graz Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) Blog | SSRN | Google Scholar | my new book | Amazon Authors' Page Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Recent publications: Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014) Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, ed.) Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, ed.) The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-edited) _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EMC 1st meeting Jan 27_Executive report.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 611826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jan 30 11:02:30 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:02:30 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> <85EA74FE-23A4-4061-B356-610E8867FB46@gmail.com> Message-ID: - He did not mentioned specific dates for the reports, but he said they are almost done. - I did understand that when he was saying "governance principles" they would be process focus principles. So transparency, multistakeholder, etc would be discussed, but net neutrality and things alike would not (But remember, Fadi impressions have diverged in the past from those of the Brazilian officials). Maybe this is something that should be clarified by the committees. At the end the statement "crafting internet principles" is not that clear (to say the least) - yes, he did agree HR should be the broader framework for all this - I was in a meeting yesterday with folks of the Necessary and Proportionate coalition, and I specifically suggested Katitza (EFF), Jochai (Access) and Mathew (CDT) to submit through the site the N and P principles... On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Thanks, Carol. > This part brought my attention: > > "Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of > governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days." > > + > The addition you guys made on Human Rights and he agreed. > > I wonder what is the understanding...is it that there wouldnt be space to > debate specific principles such as necessary and proportionate? > > Do we have a date for Vint's report? > > On 29 Jan 2014 13:56, "Carolina Rossini" > wrote: > >> Well, it seems he will growth on his position until this group of social >> responsability figures out their next steps, but we can clarify >> >> Chirs is also moving to DC. >> >> No bigger context to the meeting besides dialogue. They just called folks >> from civil society and think tanks in DC to meet, since Fadi was here to >> speak at STON >> >> C. >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Rafik wrote: >> >>> hi Carolina, >>> >>> Thanks for those notes and updates and what was the context of this >>> meeting? >>> Btw Chris mondini main task is to engage business, there is no specific >>> staff for civil society :). >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 30 Jan 2014 à 00:10, Carolina a écrit : >>> >>> And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights >>> framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any >>> principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I >>> tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. >>> >>> They also mentioned new websites: >>> * learn.icann.org >>> * labs.icann.org >>> * new.icann.org >>> >>> And for contact: Chris Mondini >>> >>> Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have complementary >>> notes. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Carol >>> >>> >>> "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. >>> >>> Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of "who run the internet" up in >>> the agenda of countries around the world. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fadi is 1 1/2 in. Mandates are of 3 years. >>> >>> >>> >>> The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very >>> western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. >>> They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure >>> questions are answered. ICANN is also creating "engagement centers" >>> around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of >>> excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and >>> entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia. >>> >>> >>> >>> "Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at >>> the global level." >>> >>> >>> >>> Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. >>> >>> >>> >>> ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am >>> think this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of >>> public responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use >>> that money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help >>> him develop this strategy. >>> >>> >>> >>> An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in >>> Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. Fadiaffirms he can help with platform and costs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Civil society representatives need more strength - ICANN can support >>> costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at >>> every meeting. They are on "equal" footing. >>> >>> >>> >>> Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of >>> governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. >>> >>> >>> >>> PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort >>> should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a >>> picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second >>> phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. >>> Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, Novack, >>> etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), >>> operation (execution of the plan). >>> >>> >>> >>> Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, >>> synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that >>> the head of states >>> >>> >>> >>> IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls the >>> Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the >>> oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. >>> Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that function >>> and have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one led >>> by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying ICANN is >>> mature enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature enough ... >>> and we need a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best Bits meeting >>> and it was a great truth meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all functions. >>> And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger civil >>> society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other >>> country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. >>> >>> >>> We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come >>> together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, >>> hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. >>> >>> >>> March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >>> Open Technology Institute >>> *New America Foundation* >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Thu Jan 30 11:19:53 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:19:53 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC Message-ID: Who cares what he thinks. We should submit what we think needs to be addressed in Internet policy!  -------- Original message -------- From: Carolina Rossini Date: 01/30/2014 11:02 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Joana Varon ,Jochai Ben-Avie Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" ,Rafik Dammak Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC - He did not mentioned specific dates for the reports, but he said they are almost done. - I did understand that when he was saying "governance principles" they would be process focus principles. So transparency, multistakeholder, etc would be discussed, but net neutrality and things alike would not (But remember, Fadi impressions have diverged in the past from those of the Brazilian officials). Maybe this is something that should be clarified by the committees. At the end the statement "crafting internet principles" is not that clear (to say the least)  - yes, he did agree HR should be the broader framework for all this - I was in a meeting yesterday with folks of the Necessary and Proportionate coalition, and I specifically suggested Katitza (EFF), Jochai (Access) and Mathew (CDT) to submit through the site the N and P principles... On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Joana Varon wrote: Thanks, Carol. This part brought my attention: "Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days." + The addition you guys made on Human Rights and he agreed. I wonder what is the understanding...is it that there wouldnt be space to debate specific  principles such as necessary and proportionate? Do we have a date for Vint's report? On 29 Jan 2014 13:56, "Carolina Rossini" wrote: Well, it seems he will growth on his position until this group of social responsability figures out their next steps, but we can clarify Chirs is also moving to DC.  No bigger context to the meeting besides dialogue. They just called folks from civil society and think tanks in DC to meet, since Fadi was here to speak at STON C.  On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Rafik wrote: hi Carolina, Thanks for those notes and updates and what was the context of this meeting? Btw Chris mondini main task is to engage business, there is no  specific staff for civil society :). Best, Rafik Le 30 Jan 2014 à 00:10, Carolina a écrit : And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it.   Sent from my iPhone On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Dear all, here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. They also mentioned new websites: * learn.icann.org * labs.icann.org * new.icann.org And for contact: Chris Mondini Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have complementary notes. Best, Carol "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of “who run the internet” up in the agenda of countries around the world.   Fadi is 1 ½ in. Mandates are of 3 years.   The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure questions are answered. ICANN is also creating “engagement centers” around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia.   “Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at the global level.”   Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness.   ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am think this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of public responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use that money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help him develop this strategy.   An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. Fadi affirms he can help with platform and costs.   Civil society representatives need more strength – ICANN can support costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at every meeting. They are on “equal” footing.   Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days.   PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, Novack, etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), operation (execution of the plan).   Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that the head of states   IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls the Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that function and have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one led by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying ICANN is mature enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature enough … and we need a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best Bits meeting and it was a great truth meeting.   He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all functions. And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger civil society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website"   -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini  Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini  Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jan 30 11:38:48 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 01:38:48 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> <85EA74FE-23A4-4061-B356-610E8867FB46@gmail.com> Message-ID: <17BA5458-7AC6-4CED-8F85-DF152167325A@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Carolina, Could you recommend the key principles statements we might consider. Jeremy drew up a list: Add President Rousseff's speech to the UN GA and also the UN "right to privacy in the digital age" (based on the Brazil+German draft, copy attached). Necessary and proportionate and Carl Bildt's Seoul cyber conf speech , both spoken highly of in Bali. Marco Civil should be consider if it passes and if Brazil wants it there. Community informatics statement (though I think a bit aspirational). Is that it, what am I missing? Thanks, Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: un privacy in the digital age.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56850 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:02 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > - He did not mentioned specific dates for the reports, but he said they are almost done. > - I did understand that when he was saying "governance principles" they would be process focus principles. So transparency, multistakeholder, etc would be discussed, but net neutrality and things alike would not (But remember, Fadi impressions have diverged in the past from those of the Brazilian officials). Maybe this is something that should be clarified by the committees. At the end the statement "crafting internet principles" is not that clear (to say the least) > - yes, he did agree HR should be the broader framework for all this > - I was in a meeting yesterday with folks of the Necessary and Proportionate coalition, and I specifically suggested Katitza (EFF), Jochai (Access) and Mathew (CDT) to submit through the site the N and P principles... > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Thanks, Carol. > This part brought my attention: > > "Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days." > > + > The addition you guys made on Human Rights and he agreed. > > I wonder what is the understanding...is it that there wouldnt be space to debate specific principles such as necessary and proportionate? > > Do we have a date for Vint's report? > > > On 29 Jan 2014 13:56, "Carolina Rossini" wrote: > Well, it seems he will growth on his position until this group of social responsability figures out their next steps, but we can clarify > > Chirs is also moving to DC. > > No bigger context to the meeting besides dialogue. They just called folks from civil society and think tanks in DC to meet, since Fadi was here to speak at STON > > C. > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Rafik wrote: > hi Carolina, > > Thanks for those notes and updates and what was the context of this meeting? > Btw Chris mondini main task is to engage business, there is no specific staff for civil society :). > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > Le 30 Jan 2014 à 00:10, Carolina a écrit : > >> And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. >>> >>> They also mentioned new websites: >>> * learn.icann.org >>> * labs.icann.org >>> * new.icann.org >>> >>> And for contact: Chris Mondini >>> >>> Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have complementary notes. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Carol >>> >>> >>> "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. >>> >>> Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of “who run the internet” up in the agenda of countries around the world. >>> >>> >>> Fadi is 1 ½ in. Mandates are of 3 years. >>> >>> >>> The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure questions are answered. ICANN is also creating “engagement centers” around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia. >>> >>> >>> “Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at the global level.” >>> >>> >>> Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. >>> >>> >>> ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am think this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of public responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use that money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help him develop this strategy. >>> >>> >>> An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. Fadi affirms he can help with platform and costs. >>> >>> >>> Civil society representatives need more strength – ICANN can support costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at every meeting. They are on “equal” footing. >>> >>> >>> Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. >>> >>> >>> PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, Novack, etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), operation (execution of the plan). >>> >>> >>> Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that the head of states >>> >>> >>> IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls the Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that function and have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one led by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying ICANN is mature enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature enough … and we need a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best Bits meeting and it was a great truth meeting. >>> >>> >>> He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all functions. And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger civil society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. >>> >>> >>> >>> We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. >>> >>> >>> >>> March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Carolina Rossini >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>> Open Technology Institute >>> New America Foundation >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jan 30 11:49:05 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:49:05 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That is how I also feel On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:19 AM, genekimmelman at gmail.com < genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: > Who cares what he thinks. We should submit what we think needs to be > addressed in Internet policy! > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Carolina Rossini > Date: 01/30/2014 11:02 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Joana Varon ,Jochai Ben-Avie < > jochai at accessnow.org> > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" ,Rafik > Dammak > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC > > > - He did not mentioned specific dates for the reports, but he said they > are almost done. > - I did understand that when he was saying "governance principles" they > would be process focus principles. So transparency, multistakeholder, etc > would be discussed, but net neutrality and things alike would not (But > remember, Fadi impressions have diverged in the past from those of the > Brazilian officials). Maybe this is something that should be clarified by > the committees. At the end the statement "crafting internet principles" is > not that clear (to say the least) > - yes, he did agree HR should be the broader framework for all this > - I was in a meeting yesterday with folks of the Necessary and > Proportionate coalition, and I specifically suggested Katitza (EFF), Jochai > (Access) and Mathew (CDT) to submit through the site the N and P > principles... > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Thanks, Carol. >> This part brought my attention: >> >> "Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of >> governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days." >> >> + >> The addition you guys made on Human Rights and he agreed. >> >> I wonder what is the understanding...is it that there wouldnt be space to >> debate specific principles such as necessary and proportionate? >> >> Do we have a date for Vint's report? >> >> On 29 Jan 2014 13:56, "Carolina Rossini" >> wrote: >> >>> Well, it seems he will growth on his position until this group of social >>> responsability figures out their next steps, but we can clarify >>> >>> Chirs is also moving to DC. >>> >>> No bigger context to the meeting besides dialogue. They just called >>> folks from civil society and think tanks in DC to meet, since Fadi was here >>> to speak at STON >>> >>> C. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Rafik wrote: >>> >>>> hi Carolina, >>>> >>>> Thanks for those notes and updates and what was the context of this >>>> meeting? >>>> Btw Chris mondini main task is to engage business, there is no >>>> specific staff for civil society :). >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 30 Jan 2014 à 00:10, Carolina a écrit : >>>> >>>> And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights >>>> framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any >>>> principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini < >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I >>>> tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. >>>> >>>> They also mentioned new websites: >>>> * learn.icann.org >>>> * labs.icann.org >>>> * new.icann.org >>>> >>>> And for contact: Chris Mondini >>>> >>>> Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have complementary >>>> notes. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Carol >>>> >>>> >>>> "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. >>>> >>>> Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of "who run the internet" up >>>> in the agenda of countries around the world. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Fadi is 1 1/2 in. Mandates are of 3 years. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very >>>> western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. >>>> They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure >>>> questions are answered. ICANN is also creating "engagement centers" >>>> around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of >>>> excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and >>>> entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at >>>> the global level." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am >>>> think this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of >>>> public responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use >>>> that money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help >>>> him develop this strategy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in >>>> Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. >>>> Fadi affirms he can help with platform and costs. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Civil society representatives need more strength - ICANN can support >>>> costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at >>>> every meeting. They are on "equal" footing. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of >>>> governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort >>>> should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a >>>> picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second >>>> phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. >>>> Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, >>>> Novack, etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), >>>> operation (execution of the plan). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, >>>> synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that >>>> the head of states >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls >>>> the Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the >>>> oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. >>>> Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that >>>> function and have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, >>>> one led by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying >>>> ICANN is mature enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature >>>> enough ... and we need a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best >>>> Bits meeting and it was a great truth meeting. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all >>>> functions. And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger >>>> civil society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other >>>> country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. >>>> >>>> >>>> We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come >>>> together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, >>>> hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. >>>> >>>> >>>> March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >>>> Open Technology Institute >>>> *New America Foundation* >>>> // >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >>> Open Technology Institute >>> *New America Foundation* >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jan 30 11:50:04 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:50:04 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: <17BA5458-7AC6-4CED-8F85-DF152167325A@glocom.ac.jp> References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> <85EA74FE-23A4-4061-B356-610E8867FB46@gmail.com> <17BA5458-7AC6-4CED-8F85-DF152167325A@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: What do you mean? The website netmundial.org is open for suggestions. On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Carolina, > > Could you recommend the key principles statements we might consider. > > Jeremy drew up a list: < > http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/statements-of-internet-rights-and-principles/ > > > > Add President Rousseff's speech to the UN GA < > http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/BR_en.pdf> and > also the UN "right to privacy in the digital age" (based on the > Brazil+German draft, copy attached). > > Necessary and proportionate > and Carl Bildt's Seoul cyber conf speech < > http://www.government.se/sb/d/17281/a/226592>, both spoken highly of in > Bali. > > Marco Civil should be consider if it passes and if Brazil wants it there. > Community informatics statement < > http://cirn.wikispaces.com/An+Internet+for+the+Common+Good+-+Engagement%2C+Empowerment%2C+and+Justice+for+All> > (though I think a bit aspirational). > > Is that it, what am I missing? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:02 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > > - He did not mentioned specific dates for the reports, but he said they > are almost done. > > - I did understand that when he was saying "governance principles" they > would be process focus principles. So transparency, multistakeholder, etc > would be discussed, but net neutrality and things alike would not (But > remember, Fadi impressions have diverged in the past from those of the > Brazilian officials). Maybe this is something that should be clarified by > the committees. At the end the statement "crafting internet principles" is > not that clear (to say the least) > > - yes, he did agree HR should be the broader framework for all this > > - I was in a meeting yesterday with folks of the Necessary and > Proportionate coalition, and I specifically suggested Katitza (EFF), Jochai > (Access) and Mathew (CDT) to submit through the site the N and P > principles... > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Joana Varon > wrote: > > Thanks, Carol. > > This part brought my attention: > > > > "Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of > governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days." > > > > + > > The addition you guys made on Human Rights and he agreed. > > > > I wonder what is the understanding...is it that there wouldnt be space > to debate specific principles such as necessary and proportionate? > > > > Do we have a date for Vint's report? > > > > > > On 29 Jan 2014 13:56, "Carolina Rossini" > wrote: > > Well, it seems he will growth on his position until this group of social > responsability figures out their next steps, but we can clarify > > > > Chirs is also moving to DC. > > > > No bigger context to the meeting besides dialogue. They just called > folks from civil society and think tanks in DC to meet, since Fadi was here > to speak at STON > > > > C. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Rafik wrote: > > hi Carolina, > > > > Thanks for those notes and updates and what was the context of this > meeting? > > Btw Chris mondini main task is to engage business, there is no specific > staff for civil society :). > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > Le 30 Jan 2014 à 00:10, Carolina a écrit : > > > >> And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights > framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any > principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I > tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my notes. > >>> > >>> They also mentioned new websites: > >>> * learn.icann.org > >>> * labs.icann.org > >>> * new.icann.org > >>> > >>> And for contact: Chris Mondini > >>> > >>> Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have > complementary notes. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Carol > >>> > >>> > >>> "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. > >>> > >>> Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of "who run the internet" up > in the agenda of countries around the world. > >>> > >>> > >>> Fadi is 1 1/2 in. Mandates are of 3 years. > >>> > >>> > >>> The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very > western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 centers. > They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to ensure > questions are answered. ICANN is also creating "engagement centers" around > the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers of > excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come in Africa on youth and > entrepreneurship and a possible 3rd one in Russia. > >>> > >>> > >>> "Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at > the global level." > >>> > >>> > >>> Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. > >>> > >>> > >>> ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am > think this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president of > public responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How to use > that money in the public interest. This president brought a panel to help > him develop this strategy. > >>> > >>> > >>> An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in > Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. Fadi > affirms he can help with platform and costs. > >>> > >>> > >>> Civil society representatives need more strength - ICANN can support > costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and showing at > every meeting. They are on "equal" footing. > >>> > >>> > >>> Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of > governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. > >>> > >>> > >>> PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort > should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a > picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a second > phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of the year. > Take the high level design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, Novack, > etc. This needs to give me something that is operationalizable.), operation > (execution of the plan). > >>> > >>> > >>> Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, > synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that > the head of states > >>> > >>> > >>> IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls > the Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take the > oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter of time. > Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake that function and > have the public discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one led by > Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its report saying ICANN is mature > enough. The question is all about if ICANN is mature enough ... and we need a > mature civil society. I was invited for the Best Bits meeting and it was a > great truth meeting. > >>> > >>> > >>> He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all > functions. And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and stronger > civil society. But the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no other > country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would come > together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, > hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on the need. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the > website" > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Carolina Rossini > >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > >>> Open Technology Institute > >>> New America Foundation > >>> // > >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >>> + 1 6176979389 > >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >>> skype: carolrossini > >>> @carolinarossini > >>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > -- > > Carolina Rossini > > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > > Open Technology Institute > > New America Foundation > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > -- > > Carolina Rossini > > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > > Open Technology Institute > > New America Foundation > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Thu Jan 30 12:13:47 2014 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:13:47 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Report from the meeting of the Executive Committee - Net Mundial In-Reply-To: References: <52E9E2DB.6060501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52EA884B.2040103@gold.ac.uk> Dear Adam Thanks for reminding us of the IGF Chair summary from Bali. So to answer your question about what is missing, see http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/ for the English and Arabic version of the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. Matthew Shears also had a constructive suggestion around this theme and included also http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/going-visible-women%E2%80%99s-rights-internet If I could add to the various threads here, whilst we wrestle with process, ponder just how many documents that fulfill the minimum requirement of a) being civil society or not, or b) Are multistakeholder enough or not, or c) are abstract and broad enough to be acceptable to all, we are overlooking the fact that Principles are the tip of an iceberg that has already formed. I look forward to the conversation also getting into the substance of these principles; e.g the IRP Charter is the basis for the IRP Principles. The latter are embedded in the fuller Charter's 20 clauses which are also a work in progress. The Brazil Meeting is an opportunity to gather all these initiatives together and discuss them in an open way. I hope this opportunity is one we won't miss. cheers MF On 30/01/2014 07:24, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > On Jan 30, 2014, at 2:27 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Thanks to Marilia and Adam for their report... >> >> A small question -- there is framing text on the meeting website seeking inputs on the IG roadmap and Internet principles... Any idea who drafted/ wrote that text. >> >> http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribution/principles >> > > The exec committee. We might try to provide more detail, something we need to discuss. > > Adam > > > >> Thanks >> >> parminder >> >> On Tuesday 28 January 2014 03:24 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Thanks Marilia, great notes. Not much to add. (I am not subscribed to cone-elist at net-equality.org >>> , please forward) >>> >>> On the two topics: >>> >>> "internet governance principles" >>> >>> Agreement that a great deal of works has been done on principles, not that we now need more actual principles, but an attempt to develop a set of universal principles, to distill what we have. Some ideas about how to do this, but no clear agreement. >>> >>> "roadmap for the further evolution of the internet governance ecosystem" >>> >>> Issue less developed and less understood. What the particular sub-topics might be not as clear. Expecting input from the ICANN panel looking at the topic and the high-level panel. We mentioned that while the panels' input would be helpful, we did not want to defer to the work of those panels, they weren't the default content. I think now would be a good time to introduce the bestbits work on this. >>> >>> Question: how do we get from her, to some outcome on April 24? Or should we expect work to continue beyond Sao Paulo? (this is my preference.) >>> >>> BTW, I suspect the new website >>> >>> pages on content were intended as placeholders and not meant to go live. Checking this. Suggest everyone ignore for now. >>> >>> Date for contributions: I also had as March 1, but I found some of the conversations hard to follow (choppy and poorly mic'd room.) >>> >>> About the Transamerica Hotel: the conference facilities are available, but all rooms booked, so would mean many buses in an out from other hotels. Since making first inquires about hotels the Hyatt's become available, and as Marilia mentions has rooms and is also close to many other hotels, of different classes/cost. Local leads looking at the Hyatt as we were having our meeting. >>> >>> Seeing the meeting schedule reinforces how little time there will be. Which affects outcomes. Organizers are looking for flexibility in use of the venue later into the evening, and the Hyatt makes this possible. Looking at the possibility of an evening session on April 23 (7 to 9:30) for perhaps stakeholder meetings, perhaps regional. And if the venue can remain open late (or not close if you'd like to draft all night). Got the impression the logistics side working hard on arrangements, they are pretty experienced in holding meetings of similar type, and trying to be imaginative/helpful in arrangements. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> >>>> This is an attempt to summarize the main points discussed today at the meeting of the Executive multi-stakeholder committee (EMC). Notes are based on my own perceptions and views. Adam or C.A. may correct or complement them. >>>> >>>> >>>> General impression: the meeting went very well, the atmosphere was cooperative and our chairs managed to balance the free flow of ideas with discipline regarding schedule. We went through all agenda items and finished the meeting on time. The down side was that the microphone in the room did not capture very well those that were sitting far from it. Adam reported some difficulties and this is something to be improved. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regarding the substantive agenda: >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Work Plan of EMC >>>> >>>> - The group plans to have 2 more face to face meetings. It was agreed that each member needs to provide his own funding to attend. Remote participation will be available. >>>> >>>> - Each meeting should be reported with a summary. News will be posted to the website >>>> >>>> - Conference calls will be scheduled as necessary >>>> >>>> - Communication in the list will be used to continue the discussion in-between meetings and calls >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. April Meeting agenda (main topics) >>>> >>>> - The group agreed with the importance of two items currently on the agenda >>>> >>>> - The group identified the need to flesh out the two items a little more to improve clarity. I believe the paragraphs will be posted to the website. >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. Participation criteria >>>> >>>> - The group was guided by some basic ideas such as: openness, equality and flexibility >>>> >>>> - The group agreed that the meeting should be open. The practical limitation is physical space. The exact capacity is yet to be confirmed, because the location of the event was not decided: there are two options on the table (see the section “venue” below). But a viable figure seems to be between 700 to 800 people. The aim is to have balance among stakeholder groups. >>>> >>>> - The meeting will have like a “pre-registration”. Individuals will register on the website (more or less like the IGF) stating their institutional affiliation, stakeholder group and previous experience with the theme. >>>> >>>> - The group believed that it is very possible that the registrations of individuals from stakeholder groups will not exceed the number of “slots” allocated to each stakeholder group. Some of the most experienced people among us shared this impression too. In this scenario, whoever registers will be able to attend. >>>> >>>> - If “over-registration” happens with relation to any stakeholder group, some criteria (previously discussed with the stakeholders) will be used for selection by the EMC. Some criteria was mentioned today, like participation from developing countries and having previous experience with the theme. But nothing was decided. The discussion of criteria will take place only if needed and in consultation with the stakeholders. >>>> >>>> - In addition, we took into account that some stakeholder groups may not fill all their slots. If this happens, we can use some of this spare space to minimize a problem “over-registration” of another stakeholder group. >>>> >>>> - Pre-registration will be open throughout the month of February. Confirmation of the participation should be received by mid March. These dates are tentative. (my comment: we can follow-up registrations closely to assess the scenario). >>>> >>>> - Brazil will assist to speed up visas for participants. >>>> >>>> >>>> Some questions about participation formulated by CS folks were directly asked and responded: >>>> >>>> >>>> - What does participation mean? Are all participants able to speak and contribute to decision-making if the meeting is indeed outcome oriented? à Yes, all would have equal participation in the formulation of all outcomes. >>>> >>>> - There will be travel support? à No, it will work like the IGF. The organizers of the meeting will not provide travel support. But it was informally shared that organizations that usually offer support to IG related meetings are discussing this topic. >>>> >>>> - There will be remote participation? à Yes, but LOG will take care, not EMC. What we discussed today was that RP should include webcasting and participation as well, so the aim is to have substantive inputs. There will be some hubs, and any person can also access individually. >>>> >>>> >>>> 4) Public consultation >>>> >>>> obs: this topic probably needs more inputs from Adam or Carlos since I was helping with one of the paragraphs at this moment and may have missed something >>>> >>>> >>>> - Inputs will be provided through the website >>>> >>>> - There will a limitation of length (some said 3-5 pages, per agenda item. Not yet defined) >>>> >>>> - It was mentioned that very broad and open-ended questions could be proposed to give some reference to submissions. Proposals of questions on institutional frameworks were sent to the list of EMC. >>>> >>>> - It was mentioned that pdf is not a good format for compilation of inputs. Plain text was suggested (contributions pasted to a form on the website) >>>> >>>> - All individual contributions will be made available for consultation in the website >>>> >>>> - All contributions will be treated equally >>>> >>>> - I think contributions would be accepted until the first of March (can others please confirm?) >>>> >>>> - A synthesis paper (comprehensive report) should be produced for easy reference and as an additional input (by the Secretariat? – can others confirm?) >>>> >>>> - It was also mentioned that it would be useful if a draft text on principles and draft text on frameworks were produced before the event. The drafts would be only a starting point to help discussions. Participants would decide what to do with it. These drafts should be done in a multistakeholder way. We did not have time to continue on this topic. Further discussion is needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. Meeting format/meeting agenda >>>> >>>> - The physical space of the hotel does not offer the possibility to split the audience in two parallel tracks for the two agenda items. There some other rooms besides the main room, but they are smaller.A basic tentative schedule was drafted today. >>>> >>>> >>>> Day 1: >>>> >>>> 9:00-11:00 – Opening ceremony >>>> >>>> 11:30-13:00 – Principles >>>> >>>> 14:00-16:00 – Frameworks >>>> >>>> 16:30-18:00 – principles >>>> >>>> >>>> Day 2: >>>> >>>> 9:00 – 11:00 – Frameworks >>>> >>>> 11:30 – 13:00 – Principles >>>> >>>> 14:00 – 16:00 – panel discussion (focus tbd) >>>> >>>> 16:00 – 18:00 – conclusions/adoption/outcomes >>>> >>>> >>>> Obs.: The group thought it was good to intercalate the topics in order to give windows for conversations within stakeholder groups and among different stakeholders, and to give our ideas some “air” to evolve. >>>> >>>> >>>> 6. Wrap-up, Next steps >>>> >>>> Obs.: I did not get this part, as I was leaving. But I think the topic was the dates of the next meetings of the EMC. Others can clarify. >>>> >>>> >>>> Venue: >>>> >>>> - Transamerica Hotel is booked, but another hotel, the Hyatt, has just become available. Hyatt offers some advantages: there are more hotels around it (including less expensive ones) so shuttles would not be needed. Hyatt also has more rooms available than Transamerica. The LOG is negotiating (at least until I left São Paulo today) and final information on that is coming soon. >>>> >>>> - It may be possible to use some of the smaller rooms one day previous to the event (a “day zero”). LOG will look into that, but cannot commit at this moment. >>>> >>>> - There will be no space for booths or exhibitions. There may be tables for flyers, publications and similar. >>>> >>>> >>>> One quick last comment. I believe that all stakeholder groups need to work harder on gender balance. Today I was the only woman in the meeting, and actually think I am the only in EMC, though I dont know all the members. Really something to be improved. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry for the long message, but I hope it will be useful. >>>> >>>> Marília >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Marília Maciel >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>>> >>>> Researcher and Coordinator >>>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>>> >>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate >>>> >>>> www.diplomacy.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as 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 and Politics Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths (University of London) Department of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Thu Jan 30 12:18:46 2014 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:18:46 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52EA8976.9010507@gold.ac.uk> +1 from me, and I think I am all grown up now so am "mature" enough... though who knows?! :) best MF On 30/01/2014 17:49, Carolina Rossini wrote: > That is how I also feel > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:19 AM, genekimmelman at gmail.com > > wrote: > > Who cares what he thinks. We should submit what we think needs to > be addressed in Internet policy! > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Carolina Rossini > > Date: 01/30/2014 11:02 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Joana Varon >,Jochai Ben-Avie > > > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > <" > >,Rafik Dammak > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC > > > - He did not mentioned specific dates for the reports, but he said > they are almost done. > - I did understand that when he was saying "governance principles" > they would be process focus principles. So transparency, > multistakeholder, etc would be discussed, but net neutrality and > things alike would not (But remember, Fadi impressions have > diverged in the past from those of the Brazilian officials). Maybe > this is something that should be clarified by the committees. At > the end the statement "crafting internet principles" is not that > clear (to say the least) > - yes, he did agree HR should be the broader framework for all this > - I was in a meeting yesterday with folks of the Necessary and > Proportionate coalition, and I specifically suggested Katitza > (EFF), Jochai (Access) and Mathew (CDT) to submit through the site > the N and P principles... > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Joana Varon > > wrote: > > Thanks, Carol. > This part brought my attention: > > "Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but > principles of governance: principles, networks, etc. We will > just have 2 days." > > + > The addition you guys made on Human Rights and he agreed. > > I wonder what is the understanding...is it that there wouldnt > be space to debate specific principles such as necessary and > proportionate? > > Do we have a date for Vint's report? > > On 29 Jan 2014 13:56, "Carolina Rossini" > > wrote: > > Well, it seems he will growth on his position until this > group of social responsability figures out their next > steps, but we can clarify > > Chirs is also moving to DC. > > No bigger context to the meeting besides dialogue. They > just called folks from civil society and think tanks in DC > to meet, since Fadi was here to speak at STON > > C. > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Rafik > > > wrote: > > hi Carolina, > > Thanks for those notes and updates and what was the > context of this meeting? > Btw Chris mondini main task is to engage business, > there is no specific staff for civil society :). > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > Le 30 Jan 2014 à 00:10, Carolina > > a écrit : > >> And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up >> that Human Rights framework should be a core issue to >> be considered as a base for any principle setting >> moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini >> > > wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> here my notes from what Fadi talked about this >>> morning here in DC. I tried to capture as much as I >>> could his own words. But this are my notes. >>> >>> They also mentioned new websites: >>> * learn.icann.org >>> * labs.icann.org >>> * new.icann.org >>> >>> And for contact: Chris Mondini >>> >>> Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may >>> have complementary notes. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Carol >>> >>> >>> "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. >>> >>> Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of “who run >>> the internet” up in the agenda of countries around >>> the world. >>> >>> Fadi is 1 ½ in. Mandates are of 3 years. >>> >>> The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. >>> ICANN is a very western centric organization, based >>> on its staff and posture. 3 centers. They have >>> implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to >>> ensure questions are answered. ICANN is also >>> creating “engagement centers” around the world. >>> Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. Building centers >>> of excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come >>> in Africa on youth and entrepreneurship and a >>> possible 3^rd one in Russia. >>> >>> “Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the >>> responsibilities it has at the global level.” >>> >>> Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism >>> and openness. >>> >>> ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may >>> diverge. I am think this is we have not acted > he >>> appointed a full time president of public >>> responsibility > one of the key elements is >>> education. How to use that money in the public >>> interest. This president brought a panel to help him >>> develop this strategy. >>> >>> An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday >>> and Saturday in Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same >>> with civil society in November. Fadi affirms he can >>> help with platform and costs. >>> >>> Civil society representatives need more strength – >>> ICANN can support costs of travel. We have a 133 >>> countries siting at the table and showing at every >>> meeting. They are on “equal” footing. >>> >>> Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, >>> but principles of governance: principles, networks, >>> etc. We will just have 2 days. >>> >>> PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will >>> work, this effort should end in the Brazil meeting) >>> (hopefully this will be shown as a picture. This is >>> a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a >>> second phase and it will start in early may and go >>> through the end of the year. Take the high level >>> design and develop how it will work. Joi Ito, >>> Novack, etc. This needs to give me something that is >>> operationalizable.), operation (execution of the plan). >>> >>> Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex >>> regime that is new, synchronized with the >>> nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure that >>> the head of states >>> >>> IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms >>> that US controls the Internet. Fadi discussed with >>> his board that ICANN should take the oversight from >>> US. It was always know that this was just a matter >>> of time. Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is >>> ready to overtake that function and have the public >>> discussion about it. We have strategy panels, one >>> led by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its >>> report saying ICANN is mature enough. The question >>> is all about if ICANN is mature enough … and we need >>> a mature civil society. I was invited for the Best >>> Bits meeting and it was a great truth meeting. >>> >>> He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to >>> assume all functions. And for this to happen Fadi >>> feels we need more and stronger civil society. But >>> the stakeholders need engage and be mature, so no >>> other country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. >>> >>> >>> We are planning the creation of governance networks. >>> How we would come together and for a certain issue >>> could include A + B + C. they are dynamic, hopefully >>> effective and the involved may vary based on the need. >>> >>> >>> March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil >>> mtg in the website" >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ >>> Open Technology Institute >>> *New America Foundation* >>> // >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com >>> * >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com > * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > -- Dr Marianne Franklin Professor of Global Media and Politics Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths (University of London) Department of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Thu Jan 30 12:21:34 2014 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:21:34 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: notes from meeting with FADI in DC In-Reply-To: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> References: <6868B0A5-E85C-4C61-AE9F-94424116D2E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52EA8A1E.4060201@gold.ac.uk> Thanks Carolina and Brett for bringing this up. That said, a "Framework" is not in itself content; if said principles become all about process, then substantive issues in the holistic sense will drop off the radar. In other words, human rights imply process issues but not necessarily the other way around so these rights need to be unpacked and fleshed out. The N&P principles do this because they focus on privacy for instance. best MF On 29/01/2014 16:10, Carolina wrote: > And an important addition, Brett and I brought it up that Human Rights > framework should be a core issue to be considered as a base for any > principle setting moving forward and Fadi agreed and reinforced it. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Carolina Rossini > > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> here my notes from what Fadi talked about this morning here in DC. I >> tried to capture as much as I could his own words. But this are my >> notes. >> >> They also mentioned new websites: >> * learn.icann.org >> * labs.icann.org >> * new.icann.org >> >> And for contact: Chris Mondini >> >> Brett from Access was also in the meeting, so he may have >> complementary notes. >> >> Best, >> >> Carol >> >> >> "This is our first gathering of the DC ICANN office. >> >> Snowden, good or bad, brought the topic of “who run the internet” up >> in the agenda of countries around the world. >> >> Fadi is 1 ½ in. Mandates are of 3 years. >> >> The openness for ICANN is crucial for our mission. ICANN is a very >> western centric organization, based on its staff and posture. 3 >> centers. They have implemented Sales Force CRM across the offices to >> ensure questions are answered. ICANN is also creating “engagement >> centers” around the world. Montevideo, Beijing, Geneva, Cairo. >> Building centers of excellence, such as in Delhi and another to come >> in Africa on youth and entrepreneurship and a possible 3^rd one in >> Russia. >> >> “Ensuring that ICANN is ready to face the responsibilities it has at >> the global level.” >> >> Wants ICANN to be an example of multistakeholderism and openness. >> >> ICANN is rooted in the pubic interest. Some view may diverge. I am >> think this is we have not acted > he appointed a full time president >> of public responsibility > one of the key elements is education. How >> to use that money in the public interest. This president brought a >> panel to help him develop this strategy. >> >> An academic meeting in August as a follow-up. Friday and Saturday in >> Rio. Fadi also wants to do the same with civil society in November. >> Fadi affirms he can help with platform and costs. >> >> Civil society representatives need more strength – ICANN can support >> costs of travel. We have a 133 countries siting at the table and >> showing at every meeting. They are on “equal” footing. >> >> Brazil wont discuss internet principles in general, but principles of >> governance: principles, networks, etc. We will just have 2 days. >> >> PHASES: Design (the internet ecosystem which will work, this effort >> should end in the Brazil meeting) (hopefully this will be shown as a >> picture. This is a high level document. 10pgs), engineer (this is a >> second phase and it will start in early may and go through the end of >> the year. Take the high level design and develop how it will work. >> Joi Ito, Novack, etc. This needs to give me something that is >> operationalizable.), operation (execution of the plan). >> >> Fadi are bringing the pieces to create a complex regime that is new, >> synchronized with the nation-state model. We are in a race to ensure >> that the head of states >> >> IANA: this was a discussion where only small rooms that US controls >> the Internet. Fadi discussed with his board that ICANN should take >> the oversight from US. It was always know that this was just a matter >> of time. Fadi and his board agreed that ICANN is ready to overtake >> that function and have the public discussion about it. We have >> strategy panels, one led by Vincent Cerf, who is about to release its >> report saying ICANN is mature enough. The question is all about if >> ICANN is mature enough … and we need a mature civil society. I was >> invited for the Best Bits meeting and it was a great truth meeting. >> >> He wants us to be sure we all are mature enough to assume all >> functions. And for this to happen Fadi feels we need more and >> stronger civil society. But the stakeholders need engage and be >> mature, so no other country (or all of them) take control of the IANA. >> >> >> We are planning the creation of governance networks. How we would >> come together and for a certain issue could include A + B + C. they >> are dynamic, hopefully effective and the involved may vary based on >> the need. >> >> >> March 1st is the deadline for submissions for Brazil mtg in the website" >> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> -- Dr Marianne Franklin Professor of Global Media and Politics Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths (University of London) Department of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Jan 30 23:40:23 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:10:23 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Thanks for this initiative, +1 from us. Please add the Internet Democracy Project to the signatories. The only small quibble I have is that the one reference to the IGF that is maintained (I read the conversation about this on the summit list) continues to read a little awkwardly. I've tried to reformulate it in a more positive way. Maybe an alternative for the first sentence of the second para could be the following? *As the Brazil meeting's organisers are free to experiment with such procedures, an important opportunity to achieve these objectives and to thus transcend the constraints of the IGF in particular, caused by its location within the UN system, now exists. * Thanks and best, Anja On 30 January 2014 13:39, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > For those who are not on the "summit" list, I started a thread there with > suggestions on online/offline deliberation processes for the Brazil > meeting. Adam Peake (one of the civil society representatives on the > Executive Multistakeholder Committee of the meeting) replied and > cross-posted his reply here, but in case the context wasn't clear, I'm > reposting in a new thread, with amendments based on suggestions from the > original thread (marked in italics). > > Whilst it isn't necessary in order to get the message across to the Brazil > committees, there is value in allowing people to endorse this as a sign-on > statement, so that's what I'm proposing we do. (After a drought of months, > we will have three new sign-on statements going up at around the same > time!) Please let us know of any further suggestions for changes within > the next few days: > > To: Executive Multistakeholder Committee, cc: Logistics and Organizational > Committee > > When the Brazil meeting was officially announced, it was stated that "The > purpose of that meeting is to pursue consensus about universally accepted > governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." This > objective will not be achieved without adopting specific procedures that > can facilitate both the development of such consensus, and its accurate > measurement. > > *The Brazil meeting's organisers are free to experiment with such > procedures, to a greater extent than the IGF which operates within some of > the constraints of the UN system. Indeed, Brazil has an admirable track > record in this regard, having proposed innovative online collaboration > mechanisms such as edemocracia.camara.gov.br > and culturadigital.br > .* > > In this spirit, we wish to offer some suggestions on the procedures to be > adopted by the meeting that can facilitate purposeful deliberation and help > to narrow down the meeting's conclusions on both governance principles and > on changes to the institutional framework. In general these suggestions > are examples of mechanisms of deliberative democracy, which is a field > dedicated to producing decisions that reflect the informed deliberations of > a diverse group of affected stakeholders. Rather than just consultation, > we could call this "participation 2.0". > > Whatever mechanisms are used to facilitate this should work online and > offline, or at least the online and offline mechanisms should be mutually > supportive and well integrated. > > For online deliberation, the edemocracia.camara.gov.br portal could be > adapted for use in a multi-lingual version, that would allow proposals to > be opened for comment so that they could be refined and improved in advance > of the Brazil meeting. Alternatively, there are other online tools that > offer even more flexibility in turning discussions into well-informed > consensus outcomes, such as AthenaBridge (athenabridge.com). This would > be far more useful and a better use of resources than merely allowing the > upload of *static text*. > > Similarly for the meeting in São Paulo, there should not simply be a > parade of speeches* such as we are used to hearing at IGF plenary > sessions*, but rather a very actively facilitated process that is > designed to distill the ideas of those present into a manageable set of > proposals, to expose those proposals to reasoned deliberation, and to > assess their acceptability to a diverse group of stakeholders. Just one of > the techniques that can be used to accomplish this is called Dotmocracy ( > dotmocracy.org). > > *Whilst some have e**xpressed doubt that the **Brazil meeting will be > able to provide solutions rather than merely **offering an opportunity > for discussion*, we believe that this assumption should be challenged. > In fact there is much evidence from large scale deliberative democratic > processes already carried out around the world, that even a large meeting > such as that planned for Brazil can produce useful outcomes that reflect a > broad and well-informed consensus. > > Such successful outcomes will require proper facilitation *and the use of > tools and techniques that although successfully used elsewhere, have not > yet entered wide use in Internet governance.* We therefore encourage you > to make these tools and techniques a central feature of the Brazil meeting > and its preparatory processes. Experts in deliberative democratic theory > and practice, in both online and offline modes, could also be consulted as > necessary where gaps in the committee's own expertise may exist. > > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the > global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Tue Jan 7 17:18:10 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 22:18:10 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 from me From: Lea Kaspar > Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 To: Carolina Rossini >, Ian Peter >, "" > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon +1 From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 To: Ian Peter; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon Dear Best Bits colleagues, I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) Best to all, Carolina -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jan 31 06:59:10 2014 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 19:59:10 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] 2013 report from Best Bits interim steering commitee In-Reply-To: <52D91C05.5020601@gold.ac.uk> References: <947391B5-1965-42E6-914D-0241155331E4@ciroap.org> <52C69071.9070005@ciroap.org> <52D91C05.5020601@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <3A744881-D801-4E9D-A3E3-389C9E8AAD57@ciroap.org> Please find attached a 2013 report from the Best Bits interim steering committee, in response to a good suggestion last November from Anriette Esterhuysen that this would improve transparency, and lay a path for renewal of the steering committee after the interim group had served one year. Even for those who did not have concerns about transparency, you will still find the report useful to read, because of the way that it maps the different workstreams that have been undertaken or proposed last year. It is very easy to get lost with different activities and conversations going on in different places, so we hope this helps to make things much clearer! If anyone has any questions about the report please feel free to ask. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 report.doc Type: application/msword Size: 103424 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 report.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 166409 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2013 report.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 50339 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri Jan 31 07:05:09 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:05:09 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <3CCD0856-5C37-44F9-8FA2-7D856989E5D8@gmail.com> And you can officially sign on Public Knowledge as well On Jan 30, 2014, at 11:40 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Dear Jeremy, > > Thanks for this initiative, +1 from us. Please add the Internet Democracy Project to the signatories. > > The only small quibble I have is that the one reference to the IGF that is maintained (I read the conversation about this on the summit list) continues to read a little awkwardly. I've tried to reformulate it in a more positive way. Maybe an alternative for the first sentence of the second para could be the following? > > As the Brazil meeting's organisers are free to experiment with such procedures, an important opportunity to achieve these objectives and to thus transcend the constraints of the IGF in particular, caused by its location within the UN system, now exists. > > Thanks and best, > Anja > > > > > On 30 January 2014 13:39, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > For those who are not on the "summit" list, I started a thread there with suggestions on online/offline deliberation processes for the Brazil meeting. Adam Peake (one of the civil society representatives on the Executive Multistakeholder Committee of the meeting) replied and cross-posted his reply here, but in case the context wasn't clear, I'm reposting in a new thread, with amendments based on suggestions from the original thread (marked in italics). > > Whilst it isn't necessary in order to get the message across to the Brazil committees, there is value in allowing people to endorse this as a sign-on statement, so that's what I'm proposing we do. (After a drought of months, we will have three new sign-on statements going up at around the same time!) Please let us know of any further suggestions for changes within the next few days: > > To: Executive Multistakeholder Committee, cc: Logistics and Organizational Committee > > When the Brazil meeting was officially announced, it was stated that "The purpose of that meeting is to pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." This objective will not be achieved without adopting specific procedures that can facilitate both the development of such consensus, and its accurate measurement. > The Brazil meeting's organisers are free to experiment with such procedures, to a greater extent than the IGF which operates within some of the constraints of the UN system. Indeed, Brazil has an admirable track record in this regard, having proposed innovative online collaboration mechanisms such as edemocracia.camara.gov.br and culturadigital.br. > > In this spirit, we wish to offer some suggestions on the procedures to be adopted by the meeting that can facilitate purposeful deliberation and help to narrow down the meeting's conclusions on both governance principles and on changes to the institutional framework. In general these suggestions are examples of mechanisms of deliberative democracy, which is a field dedicated to producing decisions that reflect the informed deliberations of a diverse group of affected stakeholders. Rather than just consultation, we could call this "participation 2.0". > Whatever mechanisms are used to facilitate this should work online and offline, or at least the online and offline mechanisms should be mutually supportive and well integrated. > For online deliberation, the edemocracia.camara.gov.br portal could be adapted for use in a multi-lingual version, that would allow proposals to be opened for comment so that they could be refined and improved in advance of the Brazil meeting. Alternatively, there are other online tools that offer even more flexibility in turning discussions into well-informed consensus outcomes, such as AthenaBridge (athenabridge.com). This would be far more useful and a better use of resources than merely allowing the upload of static text. > Similarly for the meeting in São Paulo, there should not simply be a parade of speeches such as we are used to hearing at IGF plenary sessions, but rather a very actively facilitated process that is designed to distill the ideas of those present into a manageable set of proposals, to expose those proposals to reasoned deliberation, and to assess their acceptability to a diverse group of stakeholders. Just one of the techniques that can be used to accomplish this is called Dotmocracy (dotmocracy.org). > Whilst some have expressed doubt that the Brazil meeting will be able to provide solutions rather than merely offering an opportunity for discussion, we believe that this assumption should be challenged. In fact there is much evidence from large scale deliberative democratic processes already carried out around the world, that even a large meeting such as that planned for Brazil can produce useful outcomes that reflect a broad and well-informed consensus. > Such successful outcomes will require proper facilitation and the use of tools and techniques that although successfully used elsewhere, have not yet entered wide use in Internet governance. We therefore encourage you to make these tools and techniques a central feature of the Brazil meeting and its preparatory processes. Experts in deliberative democratic theory and practice, in both online and offline modes, could also be consulted as necessary where gaps in the committee's own expertise may exist. > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ceo at bnnrc.net Fri Jan 31 07:17:03 2014 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 18:17:03 +0600 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: <3CCD0856-5C37-44F9-8FA2-7D856989E5D8@gmail.com> References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <3CCD0856-5C37-44F9-8FA2-7D856989E5D8@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Thanks for this initiative, +1 from us. Please add the Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) to the signatories. with best wishes, *Bazlu* ________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|* Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) *[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]* House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|* Bangladesh*|* Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr cbd at gmail.com *|* www.bnnrc.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Fri Jan 31 08:08:59 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:08:59 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint letter on deliberative democratic processes for the Brazil meeting In-Reply-To: References: <52EA08C6.6040601@ciroap.org> <3CCD0856-5C37-44F9-8FA2-7D856989E5D8@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just one small detail, as the name of the website has changed, best called it NetMundial instead of BrMeeting. Xx j On 31 Jan 2014 10:17, "AHM Bazlur Rahman" wrote: > Dear Jeremy, > > Thanks for this initiative, +1 from us. Please add the > Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) > to the signatories. > > with best wishes, > > > > *Bazlu* > ________________________ > AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|* > Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) > *[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social > Council]* > > House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|* Bangladesh*|* > Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647 > Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr > cbd at gmail.com *|* > www.bnnrc.net > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Fri Jan 31 09:47:33 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 09:47:33 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] 2013 report from Best Bits interim steering commitee In-Reply-To: <3A744881-D801-4E9D-A3E3-389C9E8AAD57@ciroap.org> References: <947391B5-1965-42E6-914D-0241155331E4@ciroap.org> <52C69071.9070005@ciroap.org> <52D91C05.5020601@gold.ac.uk> <3A744881-D801-4E9D-A3E3-389C9E8AAD57@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52EBB785.1080001@cdt.org> Jeremy and steering committee Many thanks for this - much appreciated. It shows how much has been, and can be, achieved when we work together in a collaborative and constructive way. Matthew On 1/31/2014 6:59 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Please find attached a 2013 report from the Best Bits interim steering > committee, in response to a good suggestion last November from > Anriette Esterhuysen that this would improve transparency, and lay a > path for renewal of the steering committee after the interim group had > served one year. > > Even for those who did not have concerns about transparency, you will > still find the report useful to read, because of the way that it maps > the different workstreams that have been undertaken or proposed last > year. It is very easy to get lost with different activities and > conversations going on in different places, so we hope this helps to > make things much clearer! > > If anyone has any questions about the report please feel free to ask. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights!* | > http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > > > > -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From squ24n at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 17:21:50 2014 From: squ24n at gmail.com (Borami Kim) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 07:21:50 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님이 작성: > +1 from me > > From: Lea Kaspar > Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 > To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "" < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > +1 > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] > *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* 07 January 2014 22:14 > *To:* Ian Peter; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > > Dear Best Bits colleagues, > > I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits > list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil > Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the > final list. :-) > > Best to all, > > > > Carolina > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > > Open Technology Institute > > *New America Foundation* > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkilic at citizen.org Tue Jan 7 17:35:51 2014 From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:35:51 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B9F4FFA83@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> +1 From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon +1 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" >님이 작성: +1 from me From: Lea Kaspar > Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 To: Carolina Rossini >, Ian Peter >, ">" > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon +1 From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 To: Ian Peter; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon Dear Best Bits colleagues, I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) Best to all, Carolina -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 17:52:14 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:52:14 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon Message-ID: +1 -------- Original message -------- From: Burcu Kilic Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" ,Carolina Rossini ,Ian Peter ,Lea Kaspar Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon +1   From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon   +1 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님이 작성: +1 from me   From: Lea Kaspar Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter , "" Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon   +1   From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 To: Ian Peter; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon   Dear Best Bits colleagues, I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) Best to all,   Carolina -- Carolina Rossini  Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Jan 7 18:16:53 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 23:16:53 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] BR meeting site launched Message-ID: The "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance" meeting in Brazil: April 23-24 2014. http://brmeeting.br Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maricarmen at tedic.org Tue Jan 7 19:15:54 2014 From: maricarmen at tedic.org (Maricarmen Sequera) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 21:15:54 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: + 1 El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" escribió: > +1 > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Burcu Kilic > Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt > > Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,Carolina Rossini ,Ian > Peter ,Lea Kaspar > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > +1 > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Borami Kim > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM > *To:* Andrew Puddephatt > *Cc:* , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina > Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > > +1 > > 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님이 작성: > > +1 from me > > > > *From: *Lea Kaspar > *Date: *Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 > *To: *Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "" < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject: *RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > > +1 > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] > *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* 07 January 2014 22:14 > *To:* Ian Peter; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > > Dear Best Bits colleagues, > > I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits > list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil > Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the > final list. :-) > > Best to all, > > > > Carolina > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > > Open Technology Institute > > *New America Foundation* > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Tue Jan 7 19:17:16 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 01:17:16 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 2014/1/8 Maricarmen Sequera > + 1 > El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > escribió: > > +1 >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Burcu Kilic >> Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt < >> Andrew at gp-digital.org> >> Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" < >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,Carolina Rossini ,Ian >> Peter ,Lea Kaspar >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Borami Kim >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM >> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt >> *Cc:* , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina >> Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님이 작성: >> >> +1 from me >> >> >> >> *From: *Lea Kaspar >> *Date: *Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 >> *To: *Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter < >> ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "" < >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> *Subject: *RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ >> mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] >> *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini >> *Sent:* 07 January 2014 22:14 >> *To:* Ian Peter; >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> >> Dear Best Bits colleagues, >> >> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits >> list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil >> Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the >> final list. :-) >> >> Best to all, >> >> >> >> Carolina >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini* >> >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> >> Open Technology Institute >> >> *New America Foundation* >> >> // >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >> skype: carolrossini >> >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jan 7 19:49:01 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:49:01 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees Message-ID: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> Below are the names received for High Level Committee (33 nominations) and Executive Committee (24 nominations) from various lists. (NCSG, Best Bits, IGC, Diplo, APC) If there are any omissions or errors, please let me know urgently. I must say there are some very good names up for consideration here, and the process of getting this down to 4 (?) reps for HLC and 2 for EC is not going to be easy. Anyway that process is now underway and the voting committee members (Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Ramilo) will now begin short listing . Results will be announced when available. Given that there is no longer a rush to complete for January 10, as that meeting will be administrative only, it make take a couple of weeks to complete. Please let me know of any errors in the list as a matter of urgency. Candidates are listed in no particular order. Ian Peter Committee 1 – HLC 1. Milton Mueller 2. Jovan Kurbalija 3. Marilia Maciel 4. Carolina Rossini 5. Dom Robinson 6. Coppens Pasteur, NDAYIRAGIJE 7. Nikhil Agarwal 8. Prof Antoine KANTIZA 9. Shawn Powers, Ph.D 10. Akiinremi Peter Taiwo 11. Dr. Lutfor Rahman 12. Limei Liu 13. Luzia Silva 14. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 15. Marwa Hamed 16. Enock Othin 17. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 18. Laura Tresca 19. John Selby 20. Arturo Bregaglio 21. Birgitta Jonsdottir 22. Danil Kerimi 23. Stephanie Perrin 24. Mark Rotenberg 25. Sonigitu Ekpe 26. Grigori Saghyan 27. Joana Varon 28. Louis Pouzin 29. Hindenburgo Pires 30. Qusai AlShatti 31. Roberto Savio 32. Roberto Bissio 33. Sean O Siochru Committee 3 – EC 1. Marilia Maciel 2. Carolina Rossini 3. Dom Robinson 4. Nadira Araj 5. Nikhil Agarwal 6. Limei Liu 7. Luzia Silva 8. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 9. Marwa Hamed 10. Enock Othin 11. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 12. Claver NIGARURA 13. Laura Tresca 14. John Selby 15. Birgitta Jonsdottir 16. Danil Kerimi 17. Stephanie Perrin 18. Mark Rotenberg 19. Sonigitu Ekpe 20. Grigori Saghyan 21. Joana Varon 22. Adam Peake 23. Norbert Bollow 24. Hindenburgo Pires -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jan 2 13:00:45 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:00:45 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] CITEL Assembly Message-ID: I attach the CITEL Circular announcing the Sixth Regular Meeting of the CITEL - https://www.citel.oas.org/en/Pages/default.aspx - Assembly to be held from February 10 to 13, 2014, in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ci-085-assemblyCirc 1404.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 69894 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jan 7 19:54:01 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:54:01 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] REVISED Re: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> References: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> Message-ID: <6F56627F4FC34CB19F4C8F923FA048D1@Toshiba> Oops – a second after sending I realised name of Parminder Singh was left of both lists. Apologies for that and I hope I have the rest right. Revised list attached From: Ian Peter Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:49 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees Below are the names received for High Level Committee (33 nominations) and Executive Committee (24 nominations) from various lists. (NCSG, Best Bits, IGC, Diplo, APC) If there are any omissions or errors, please let me know urgently. I must say there are some very good names up for consideration here, and the process of getting this down to 4 (?) reps for HLC and 2 for EC is not going to be easy. Anyway that process is now underway and the voting committee members (Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Ramilo) will now begin short listing . Results will be announced when available. Given that there is no longer a rush to complete for January 10, as that meeting will be administrative only, it make take a couple of weeks to complete. Please let me know of any errors in the list as a matter of urgency. Candidates are listed in no particular order. Ian Peter Committee 1 – HLC 1. Milton Mueller 2. Jovan Kurbalija 3. Marilia Maciel 4. Carolina Rossini 5. Dom Robinson 6. Coppens Pasteur, NDAYIRAGIJE 7. Nikhil Agarwal 8. Prof Antoine KANTIZA 9. Shawn Powers, Ph.D 10. Akiinremi Peter Taiwo 11. Dr. Lutfor Rahman 12. Limei Liu 13. Luzia Silva 14. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 15. Marwa Hamed 16. Enock Othin 17. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 18. Laura Tresca 19. John Selby 20. Arturo Bregaglio 21. Birgitta Jonsdottir 22. Danil Kerimi 23. Stephanie Perrin 24. Mark Rotenberg 25. Sonigitu Ekpe 26. Grigori Saghyan 27. Joana Varon 28. Louis Pouzin 29. Hindenburgo Pires 30. Qusai AlShatti 31. Roberto Savio 32. Roberto Bissio 33. Sean O Siochru 34. Parminder Singh Committee 3 – EC 1. Marilia Maciel 2. Carolina Rossini 3. Dom Robinson 4. Nadira Araj 5. Nikhil Agarwal 6. Limei Liu 7. Luzia Silva 8. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 9. Marwa Hamed 10. Enock Othin 11. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 12. Claver NIGARURA 13. Laura Tresca 14. John Selby 15. Birgitta Jonsdottir 16. Danil Kerimi 17. Stephanie Perrin 18. Mark Rotenberg 19. Sonigitu Ekpe 20. Grigori Saghyan 21. Joana Varon 22. Adam Peake 23. Norbert Bollow 24. Hindenburgo Pires 25 Parminder Singh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anita at itforchange.net Tue Jan 7 08:15:32 2014 From: anita at itforchange.net (anita) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:45:32 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination of Parminder Message-ID: <52CBFDF4.9050004@itforchange.net> Dear Ian/All I write this to nominate Parminder to be considered for the Executive Committee and High Level Committee of the Brazil meeting by the Civil Society Coordination Committee. This nomination is being made jointly by: Third World Network (Malaysia) Third World Institute (Uruguay) Other News (Italy) Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (Thailand) Free Software Movement India (India) IT for Change (India) I enclose details about Parminder for this purpose. Thanks and regards anita -- *Anita Gurumurthy*| Executive Director IT for Change (/In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)/ 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 Email:anita at itforchange.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /Have you visited: www.gender-is-citizenship.net / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics2 Type: image/png Size: 676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics3 Type: image/png Size: 298 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics4 Type: image/png Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Parminder info.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 74918 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 00:28:16 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:58:16 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> References: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52CCE1F0.2020202@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 06:19 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Below are the names received for High Level Committee (33 nominations) > and Executive Committee (24 nominations) from various lists. (NCSG, > Best Bits, IGC, Diplo, APC) If there are any omissions or errors, > please let me know urgently. > > I must say there are some very good names up for consideration here, > and the process of getting this down to 4 (?) reps for HLC and 2 for > EC is not going to be easy. Anyway that process is now underway and > the voting committee members (Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin > Gross and Chat Ramilo) will now begin short listing . > > Results will be announced when available. Given that there is no > longer a rush to complete for January 10, as that meeting will be > administrative only, it make take a couple of weeks to complete. > Ian, Probably you did not read this part from Hartmut's recent message "We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work." So, better work with at least 12th or 13th deadline. Parminder > Please let me know of any errors in the list as a matter of urgency. > Candidates are listed in no particular order. > > Ian Peter > > Committee 1 – HLC > > 1.Milton Mueller > > 2.Jovan Kurbalija > > 3.Marilia Maciel > > 4.Carolina Rossini > > 5.Dom Robinson > > 6.Coppens Pasteur, NDAYIRAGIJE > > 7.Nikhil Agarwal > > 8.Prof Antoine KANTIZA > > 9.Shawn Powers, Ph.D > > 10.Akiinremi Peter Taiwo > > 11.Dr. Lutfor Rahman > > 12.Limei Liu > > 13.Luzia Silva > > 14.Nawfal Al-Hadeethi > > 15.Marwa Hamed > > 16.Enock Othin > > 17.NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert > > 18.Laura Tresca > > 19.John Selby > > 20.Arturo Bregaglio > > 21.Birgitta Jonsdottir > > 22.Danil Kerimi > > 23.Stephanie Perrin > > 24.Mark Rotenberg > > 25.Sonigitu Ekpe > > 26.Grigori Saghyan > > 27.Joana Varon > > 28.Louis Pouzin > > 29.Hindenburgo Pires > > 30.Qusai AlShatti > > 31.Roberto Savio > > 32.Roberto Bissio > > 33.Sean O Siochru > > Committee 3 – EC > > 1.Marilia Maciel > > 2.Carolina Rossini > > 3.Dom Robinson > > 4.Nadira Araj > > 5.Nikhil Agarwal > > 6.Limei Liu > > 7.Luzia Silva > > 8.Nawfal Al-Hadeethi > > 9.Marwa Hamed > > 10.Enock Othin > > 11.NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert > > 12.Claver NIGARURA > > 13.Laura Tresca > > 14.John Selby > > 15.Birgitta Jonsdottir > > 16.Danil Kerimi > > 17.Stephanie Perrin > > 18.Mark Rotenberg > > 19.Sonigitu Ekpe > > 20.Grigori Saghyan > > 21.Joana Varon > > 22.Adam Peake > > 23.Norbert Bollow > > 24.Hindenburgo Pires > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jan 8 00:41:42 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:41:42 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> References: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20140108064142.4862ce4a@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > Results will be announced when available. Given that there is no > longer a rush to complete for January 10, as that meeting will be > administrative only, it make take a couple of weeks to complete. I believe Hartmut wrote not long ago that he expects the selection process to be compete, and the committees able to start their work, by January 15. So I would request the coordination group not to “take a couple of weeks”. Greetings, Norbert From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 8 00:41:49 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:41:49 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52CCE1F0.2020202@itforchange.net> References: <6DA5EAED120E424CBA3B7FA4A8BFEFA5@Toshiba> <52CCE1F0.2020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <17800CE165CB4E58B2D0595F1DB28BD5@Toshiba> Thanks Parminder, glad you brought that to our attention. From: parminder Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 4:28 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Final List - Nominations received for Brazil committees On Wednesday 08 January 2014 06:19 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Below are the names received for High Level Committee (33 nominations) and Executive Committee (24 nominations) from various lists. (NCSG, Best Bits, IGC, Diplo, APC) If there are any omissions or errors, please let me know urgently. I must say there are some very good names up for consideration here, and the process of getting this down to 4 (?) reps for HLC and 2 for EC is not going to be easy. Anyway that process is now underway and the voting committee members (Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Ramilo) will now begin short listing . Results will be announced when available. Given that there is no longer a rush to complete for January 10, as that meeting will be administrative only, it make take a couple of weeks to complete. Ian, Probably you did not read this part from Hartmut's recent message "We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work." So, better work with at least 12th or 13th deadline. Parminder Please let me know of any errors in the list as a matter of urgency. Candidates are listed in no particular order. Ian Peter Committee 1 – HLC 1. Milton Mueller 2. Jovan Kurbalija 3. Marilia Maciel 4. Carolina Rossini 5. Dom Robinson 6. Coppens Pasteur, NDAYIRAGIJE 7. Nikhil Agarwal 8. Prof Antoine KANTIZA 9. Shawn Powers, Ph.D 10. Akiinremi Peter Taiwo 11. Dr. Lutfor Rahman 12. Limei Liu 13. Luzia Silva 14. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 15. Marwa Hamed 16. Enock Othin 17. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 18. Laura Tresca 19. John Selby 20. Arturo Bregaglio 21. Birgitta Jonsdottir 22. Danil Kerimi 23. Stephanie Perrin 24. Mark Rotenberg 25. Sonigitu Ekpe 26. Grigori Saghyan 27. Joana Varon 28. Louis Pouzin 29. Hindenburgo Pires 30. Qusai AlShatti 31. Roberto Savio 32. Roberto Bissio 33. Sean O Siochru Committee 3 – EC 1. Marilia Maciel 2. Carolina Rossini 3. Dom Robinson 4. Nadira Araj 5. Nikhil Agarwal 6. Limei Liu 7. Luzia Silva 8. Nawfal Al-Hadeethi 9. Marwa Hamed 10. Enock Othin 11. NCHEKOUA TCHOUMBA Jean Robert 12. Claver NIGARURA 13. Laura Tresca 14. John Selby 15. Birgitta Jonsdottir 16. Danil Kerimi 17. Stephanie Perrin 18. Mark Rotenberg 19. Sonigitu Ekpe 20. Grigori Saghyan 21. Joana Varon 22. Adam Peake 23. Norbert Bollow 24. Hindenburgo Pires -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 00:46:03 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:16:03 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Dear folks, > > Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. > Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL > conversations with CGI. Carolina Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. /*Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. */ That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. Thanks, parminder > So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel > email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan > > > -- > *Carol (in my personal capacity) > * > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 01:12:52 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:42:52 +0530 Subject: Fwd: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> Hi Hartmut, With regard to you recent clarifications: It does not at all appear from the below report that 1Net meets LOG for banal logistics tasks (which too I am not clear what locus standi they have for). Things like "It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting." make it quite clear that extremely important substantive decisions are being taken together by LOG and 1Net, unless there is an element of mis-reporting in the below report, which I have no reason to suspect. One would greatly prefer that we know who is running the show, and on what legitimacies.... This was supposed to an open, public meeting with globally shared ownership and all such things.... Thanks, parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:55:46 -0500 From: Carolina Rossini To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Adiel Akplogan* > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org " > Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: - Hosting of the meeting: the government of Brazil is leading this aspect and is in bilateral discussion with few other countries so for the event to be hosted not only by Brazil but jointly with these countries. More update on this is normally expected this week or next. - Chairing of the meeting: It was discussed and agreed that the multistakeholder aspect of the meeting should be properly reflected in it chairmanship as well. So it wont be only ICANN and Brazil who will chair but at least two other people will be proposed to join as co-chair of the meeting. - Stakeholder groups: The issue of confusion in the the grouping of stakeholders has been discussed and it is expected that a clarification on this comes from the LOG. But the suggestion is to keep the break down as originally announced (4 groups: CS, Business, Technical and Academia) so not to induce further delay in the nominations. - Because time is against us, the LOG has expressed its hope to have all the committees launched on January 10th. Which will have a direct implication of not having all stakeholders' representatives appointed by then. It was suggested to go with what is ready by the 10th, and start some preliminaries discussions while the rest join by mid January. - The LOG has clearly expressed their preference to have /1net as their only interface for dealing with the rest of the community in general. Obviously to avoid having to deal directly with each and everyone separately. - A meeting is planned in Brazil on the 10th to kick-off the committees and begin addressing key organizing issues in order to provide some further specific information related to the whole planning. Arrangement is being made to have remote participation to that meeting for already appointed committee members who will not be able to travel to in Sao Paulo. That is all I have for now. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- *Carolina Rossini* /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 01:26:49 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 11:56:49 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5Bdiscuss=5D_=5Bgovernance=5D_Me?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?eting_in_S=E3o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_betwe?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?en_the_LOG_and_1Net?= In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: <52CCEFA9.7050700@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:02 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear Glaser, > > Is it possible that at least those who were elected in the > steering/coordination committee of 1net could also attend the next > planning meetings? > > At least from CS, it has been a demand from some representatives in > the various lists where Adiel's report was shared that at least > representatives from international civil society should attend such > meetings to report back to it's constituencies. > > As 1net has been pointed as a conduit by the LOG, and we are now > trying to create some legitimacy for this network by electing it's > representatives for the steering/coordination committee, I think that > at least enabling elected representatives for 1net to attend and > report back should be a way forward to start opening up the planing > process while the Br committees are not formed yet. Joana Before you were sent to 1Net by some CS groups (for a task never too clear to me) you were asked to be CS Liaison to the Brazilians to ensure that CS has a direct relationship with them and our that relationship is not mediated. I remember that at Bali your views were also quite strong on this issue. Now you are slipping in an acceptance of the 1Net's mediating role as fait accompli, and telling us that you are trying to contribute to building legitimacy for 1Net.. I must admit, i remain thoroughly surprised by whatever is happening, and in the closed manner that it is happening... Hope that we can hear some words of clarification from you and others... parminder > IMHO I think that would even help CGI to speed up this process. > > all the best > > joana > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > researcher > Center for Technology and Society > Fundação Getulio Vargas > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser > wrote: > > > _*URGENT INFORMATION*__*/CLARIFICATION*_ > > > Dear All, > > There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the > local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details > related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's > committees. > > _This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's__ __process,_ since > they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all > stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. > > Thanks for your support. > > Local Organizing Group/CGI.br > BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 01:35:35 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:35:35 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5Bgovernance=5D_Meeting_in_S=E3?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?o_Paulo_on_Friday=2C_January_10th=2C_is_between_the_LOG_an?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?d_1Net?= In-Reply-To: <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140106143954.0ce44ec8@elandnews.com> <71FA7EA0-82FA-4E4C-A686-F2605B7DFEF4@piuha.net> <52CC274D.9080002@cgi.br> Message-ID: Hear hear! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hartmut Richard Glaser Date: Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:11 PM Subject: [governance] Meeting in São Paulo on Friday, January 10th, is between the LOG and 1Net To: discuss at 1net.org, governance at lists.igcaucus.org, " isoc-advisory-council at elists.isoc.org" < isoc-advisory-council at elists.isoc.org>, MAG List IGF < Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>, internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org, chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org, IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org *URGENT INFORMATION**/CLARIFICATION* Dear All, There will be a face-to-face meeting in Brazil on Friday, January 10th, between the local organizing group (LOG) and representatives of 1Net to sort out relevant details related to the Brazil Meeting process, in particular the organization of the meeting's committees. *This is not a meeting of any of the committees planned for the event's* *process,* since they are not yet constituted. We hope that by January 15th the nominations from all stakeholders will be in place for all committees to start their work. Thanks for your support. Local Organizing Group/CGI.br BR Meeting - Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 8 01:54:19 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:54:19 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> Dear folks, >> >> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. > > Carolina > > Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. > Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > >> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. >> >> - a. Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: Rafik Dammak Anriette Esterhuysen Anja Kovacs Vladimir Radunovik Joana Varon Marilia Maciel as back-up. Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. Adam > Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. > > That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) > > Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? > > When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... > > I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. > > Thanks, parminder > > > >> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >> >> -- >> Carol (in my personal capacity) >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jan 2 13:01:52 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:01:52 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Invitation to provide input on the working documents of the CWG for the Elaboration of the draft Strategic and Financial Plans for the Union for 2016-2019 Message-ID: sorry if you have gotten this already ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Julian Minard Date: Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 3:41 PM Circular Letter 170 (attached) is the announcement of the public consultation on the ITU draft strategic and financial plans, in which all stakeholders are invited to contribute directly *as stakeholders*. The deadline is 31 January 2014. The government will contribute a US input to the CWG after holding a prep process also open to the public and announced over this list Julian Minard, secretariat -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CL170-e.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 84606 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 03:11:19 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:11:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> +1 Joana would be a perfect fit Bill On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > +1 > > > 2014/1/8 Maricarmen Sequera > + 1 > > El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" escribió: > > +1 > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Burcu Kilic > Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" ,Carolina Rossini ,Ian Peter ,Lea Kaspar > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > +1 > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM > To: Andrew Puddephatt > Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > > +1 > > 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님이 작성: > > +1 from me > > > > From: Lea Kaspar > Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 > To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter , "" > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > > +1 > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini > Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 > To: Ian Peter; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > > Dear Best Bits colleagues, > > I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) > > Best to all, > > > > Carolina > > > > > -- > > Carolina Rossini > > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > > Open Technology Institute > > New America Foundation > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** 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: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Wed Jan 8 04:16:28 2014 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 14:16:28 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> References: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52CD176C.7080106@bytesforall.pk> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 +1. She is untiring and trusted, hugely respected colleague. best wishes Shahzad On 1/8/14, 1:11 PM, William Drake wrote: > +1 Joana would be a perfect fit > > Bill > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> 2014/1/8 Maricarmen Sequera >> + 1 >> >> El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" escribió: >> >> +1 >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Burcu Kilic >> Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt >> Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" ,Carolina Rossini ,Ian Peter ,Lea Kaspar >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim >> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM >> To: Andrew Puddephatt >> Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님 이 작성: >> >> +1 from me >> >> >> >> From: Lea Kaspar >> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 >> To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter , "" >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini >> Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 >> To: Ian Peter; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> >> Dear Best Bits colleagues, >> >> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) >> >> Best to all, >> >> >> >> Carolina >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Carolina Rossini >> >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> >> Open Technology Institute >> >> New America Foundation >> >> // >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >> skype: carolrossini >> >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >> www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > *********************************************** > 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 > *********************************************** > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSzRdsAAoJEAO4UURgT/s1yk8H/jS1uZYA1vt/otjmKrDMJ8Jf iM5rdL8fILI9JzusGw88R4LARqoEAm1Gb59aYUebmZU8GI55ptB4Rk1DE47AG7ST r3n31fTQFVEF4B4kXshrViftnW1x9aOt/z0BdefwOBujGHXyBTrOH3iXWqxzdh5I pkvNFjwGlsbGIjIHUcfgaaENvBtHbyv09QVcIMsync3WyDgNlglkz4vFoGVtKSG+ IhC9R0BhF2S1ufOdxF1U5N9ZJRpcI3wOfxMkSmAxwHsK5KG2FphXAtmh2Y+RCTqW wpI27jF5d3rlgmQgclaegSwReXy90bPo4Ymy4b7/Wp+MVo63BpoqaN0L3omxJ6k= =oleL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pileleji at ymca.gm Wed Jan 8 04:18:02 2014 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:18:02 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: <52CD176C.7080106@bytesforall.pk> References: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> <52CD176C.7080106@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: Highly indeed +1 Poncelet On 8 January 2014 09:16, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > +1. She is untiring and trusted, hugely respected colleague. > > best wishes > Shahzad > > On 1/8/14, 1:11 PM, William Drake wrote: > > +1 Joana would be a perfect fit > > > > Bill > > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> 2014/1/8 Maricarmen Sequera > >> + 1 > >> > >> El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > escribió: > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> -------- Original message -------- > >> From: Burcu Kilic > >> Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) > >> To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt > > >> Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" > ,Carolina Rossini > ,Ian Peter ,Lea > Kaspar > >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> > >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt > >> Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina > Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님 > 이 작성: > >> > >> +1 from me > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Lea Kaspar > >> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 > >> To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter > , "" > > >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> > >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini > >> Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 > >> To: Ian Peter; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > >> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear Best Bits colleagues, > >> > >> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the > BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to > represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, > please list her in the final list. :-) > >> > >> Best to all, > >> > >> > >> > >> Carolina > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Carolina Rossini > >> > >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > >> > >> Open Technology Institute > >> > >> New America Foundation > >> > >> // > >> > >> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >> > >> + 1 6176979389 > >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >> > >> skype: carolrossini > >> > >> @carolinarossini > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet > Governance (GIG) Ohu > >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > >> www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > *********************************************** > > 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 > > *********************************************** > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSzRdsAAoJEAO4UURgT/s1yk8H/jS1uZYA1vt/otjmKrDMJ8Jf > iM5rdL8fILI9JzusGw88R4LARqoEAm1Gb59aYUebmZU8GI55ptB4Rk1DE47AG7ST > r3n31fTQFVEF4B4kXshrViftnW1x9aOt/z0BdefwOBujGHXyBTrOH3iXWqxzdh5I > pkvNFjwGlsbGIjIHUcfgaaENvBtHbyv09QVcIMsync3WyDgNlglkz4vFoGVtKSG+ > IhC9R0BhF2S1ufOdxF1U5N9ZJRpcI3wOfxMkSmAxwHsK5KG2FphXAtmh2Y+RCTqW > wpI27jF5d3rlgmQgclaegSwReXy90bPo4Ymy4b7/Wp+MVo63BpoqaN0L3omxJ6k= > =oleL > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org www.aficta.org www.itag.gm www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Wed Jan 8 04:39:44 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:39:44 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52CD1CE0.7050104@cdt.org> +1 On 1/7/2014 10:52 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > +1 > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Burcu Kilic > Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt > > Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" > ,Carolina Rossini > ,Ian Peter ,Lea > Kaspar > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > +1 > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Borami Kim > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM > *To:* Andrew Puddephatt > *Cc:* , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina > Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > +1 > > 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" >님이 작성: > > +1 from me > > *From: *Lea Kaspar > > *Date: *Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 > *To: *Carolina Rossini >, Ian Peter > >, > ">" > > > *Subject: *RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > +1 > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina > Rossini > *Sent:* 07 January 2014 22:14 > *To:* Ian Peter; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > *Subject:* [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > Dear Best Bits colleagues, > > I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits > list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent > Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list > her in the final list. :-) > > Best to all, > > Carolina > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ > > Open Technology Institute > > *New America Foundation* > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 04:41:00 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 04:41:00 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: <52CD1CE0.7050104@cdt.org> References: <52CD1CE0.7050104@cdt.org> Message-ID: + 1 Antonio Medina Gomez 2014/1/8 Matthew Shears > +1 > > > On 1/7/2014 10:52 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > > +1 > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Burcu Kilic > Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt > > Cc: " , ( > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" ,Carolina > Rossini ,Ian > Peter ,Lea Kaspar > > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > +1 > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] > *On Behalf Of *Borami Kim > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM > *To:* Andrew Puddephatt > *Cc:* , ( > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > > +1 > > 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님이 작성: > > +1 from me > > > > *From: *Lea Kaspar > *Date: *Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 > *To: *Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter < > ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, ">" < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject: *RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > > +1 > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] > *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* 07 January 2014 22:14 > *To:* Ian Peter; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > > > > Dear Best Bits colleagues, > > I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits > list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil > Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the > final list. :-) > > Best to all, > > > > Carolina > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > > Open Technology Institute > > *New America Foundation* > > // > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Wed Jan 8 04:49:46 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 07:49:46 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: <52CD1CE0.7050104@cdt.org> Message-ID: +1 João Carlos R. Caribé (021)4042 7727 (021)8761 1967 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPhone > Em 08/01/2014, às 07:41, Antonio Medina Gómez escreveu: > > + 1 > Antonio Medina Gomez > > > 2014/1/8 Matthew Shears >> +1 >> >> >>> On 1/7/2014 10:52 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Burcu Kilic >>> Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt >>> Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" ,Carolina Rossini ,Ian Peter ,Lea Kaspar >>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM >>> To: Andrew Puddephatt >>> Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님이 작성: >>> >>> +1 from me >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Lea Kaspar >>> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 >>> To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter , "" >>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini >>> Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 >>> To: Ian Peter; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Best Bits colleagues, >>> >>> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) >>> >>> Best to all, >>> >>> >>> >>> Carolina >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Carolina Rossini >>> >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>> >>> Open Technology Institute >>> >>> New America Foundation >>> >>> // >>> >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> >>> skype: carolrossini >>> >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 05:08:57 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:08:57 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons for the mess (not always but...). A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand it now, its title might be: ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my information to the listings) When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level of concern? From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. Who are the Organizers? Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet Conference? One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? Who are the Representatives of the Organizers? Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "Brazilian Internet Steering Committee". This committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee, or an ICANN and BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee. For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". Who are the Representatives for all IG participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the multistakeholder story)? After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of participation. Who are the other governments participating? No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)? - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) - ICANN representatives? - Others? ... (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting website) Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his answer yet. - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed something here) - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member at the BI SC. Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare the event under the BI SC overview? This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. We don not know about other names. Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting? LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments representatives are expected. The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for the event. Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not too demanding. The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time on this. Thanks in advance JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> Dear folks, >>> >>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >> >> Carolina >> >> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >> > > Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. > > Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: > > >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> >>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>> >>> - a. > > > > Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: > > Rafik Dammak > Anriette Esterhuysen > Anja Kovacs > Vladimir Radunovik > Joana Varon > > Marilia Maciel as back-up. > > Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? > > We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. > > Adam > > > >> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >> >> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >> >> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >> >> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >> >> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> >>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>> >>> -- >>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 8 05:49:26 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:49:26 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> References: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9B1A9FF8-FC98-40D3-B439-4A9699D8744F@glocom.ac.jp> Agree. Support adding Joana to the candidate list. Adam On Jan 8, 2014, at 5:11 PM, William Drake wrote: > +1 Joana would be a perfect fit > > Bill > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> 2014/1/8 Maricarmen Sequera >> + 1 >> >> El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" escribió: >> >> +1 >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Burcu Kilic >> Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) >> To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt >> Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" ,Carolina Rossini ,Ian Peter ,Lea Kaspar >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim >> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM >> To: Andrew Puddephatt >> Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님이 작성: >> >> +1 from me >> >> >> >> From: Lea Kaspar >> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 >> To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter , "" >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini >> Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 >> To: Ian Peter; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >> >> >> >> Dear Best Bits colleagues, >> >> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) >> >> Best to all, >> >> >> >> Carolina >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Carolina Rossini >> >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> >> Open Technology Institute >> >> New America Foundation >> >> // >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >> skype: carolrossini >> >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >> www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > *********************************************** > 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 > *********************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 mshears at cdt.org Wed Jan 8 05:57:46 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:57:46 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: <9B1A9FF8-FC98-40D3-B439-4A9699D8744F@glocom.ac.jp> References: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> <9B1A9FF8-FC98-40D3-B439-4A9699D8744F@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52CD2F2A.9040704@cdt.org> Also want to +1 Adam. On 1/8/2014 10:49 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Agree. Support adding Joana to the candidate list. > > Adam > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 5:11 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> +1 Joana would be a perfect fit >> >> Bill >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> 2014/1/8 Maricarmen Sequera >>> + 1 >>> >>> El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" escribió: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Burcu Kilic >>> Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt >>> Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" ,Carolina Rossini ,Ian Peter ,Lea Kaspar >>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM >>> To: Andrew Puddephatt >>> Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님이 작성: >>> >>> +1 from me >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Lea Kaspar >>> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 >>> To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter , "" >>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini >>> Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 >>> To: Ian Peter; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Best Bits colleagues, >>> >>> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) >>> >>> Best to all, >>> >>> >>> >>> Carolina >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Carolina Rossini >>> >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>> >>> Open Technology Institute >>> >>> New America Foundation >>> >>> // >>> >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> >>> skype: carolrossini >>> >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu >>> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >>> www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> *********************************************** >> 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 >> *********************************************** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 06:16:04 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:16:04 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: <52CD2F2A.9040704@cdt.org> References: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> <9B1A9FF8-FC98-40D3-B439-4A9699D8744F@glocom.ac.jp> <52CD2F2A.9040704@cdt.org> Message-ID: <7D745F27-B90C-4E15-AA56-C86ACB52DFDA@gmail.com> Would be a very good pair. BD On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Matthew Shears wrote: > Also want to +1 Adam. > > On 1/8/2014 10:49 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Agree. Support adding Joana to the candidate list. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 5:11 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> +1 Joana would be a perfect fit >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014/1/8 Maricarmen Sequera >>>> + 1 >>>> >>>> El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" escribió: >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Burcu Kilic >>>> Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) >>>> To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt >>>> Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" ,Carolina Rossini ,Ian Peter ,Lea Kaspar >>>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM >>>> To: Andrew Puddephatt >>>> Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님이 작성: >>>> >>>> +1 from me >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Lea Kaspar >>>> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 >>>> To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter , "" >>>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini >>>> Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 >>>> To: Ian Peter; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>>> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Best Bits colleagues, >>>> >>>> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) >>>> >>>> Best to all, >>>> >>>> >>>> Carolina >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Carolina Rossini >>>> >>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>>> >>>> Open Technology Institute >>>> >>>> New America Foundation >>>> >>>> // >>>> >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu >>>> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >>>> www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> *********************************************** >>> 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 >>> *********************************************** >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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 *********************************************** 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 *********************************************** From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 3 12:16:21 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 22:46:21 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B8472B.1050307@wzb.eu> <52B84E9C.9030304@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <52C6F065.5050809@itforchange.net> Hi All Since I proposed the marginalised groups linkage/ representation criterion, I think I must defend it... Apparently, it is being proposed that it is difficult to ascertain linkages with marginalised groups and causes . Some of the same people are very keen on 'being able to work with other stakeholders' as a rather more important as well as ascertainable criterion.. Such a position IMHO represents the core of what my organisation and many other groups see as problematic with a good amount of civil society currently engaged with IG... Firstly, it it patently wrong to say that it is more difficult to assess the nature of a civil group's or even individual's work and linkages with different causes and interest groups than it is to assess a person's likeability among other stakeholders (and of course, with 'other stakeholders' here we mostly mean big business and the technical community, also quite often on the roll of big business, which itself is a rather limited view of 'stakeholders')) . Secondly, it seems to valorise (or at least has the practical effect of doing so) the extent of relationship building with big business and some other groups close to big business over the representation of interests of marginalised groups and causes ... First, about the criterion of representation of marginalised groups/ causes.... In fact, in most of civil society spaces that I am familiar with, it is indeed almost necessary to have (demonstratable) linkages with marginalised groups and causes. Such linkages can of course rather easily be demonstrated, if they exist... From the predominate nature of ones work, positions, pronouncements, etc, and also from the visible work/ activity linkages to other groups, grass-root communities, and so on.... I have no idea why would one consider this as difficult to demonstrate.. Next, about the criterion of 'being able to work with other stakeholders - first of all, I would ask those who push this criterion as one of the most important one to tell us, what are their verifiable means of asserting/ using it. To me it appears as a subjective behavioural assessment. In a patently political process, political criteria have to be given much greater importance than subjective behavioural ones, which can easily be mis- applied. Next, also please clarify which all stakeholders you consider as the ones that every potential nominee should be able to work with. Pending the explanation, let me speculate a bit... I suspect, the stakeholders that are meant here - or generally, in relation to which this criterion gets applied - is business community and the technical community ( defined as being those directly engaged with or close to 1* group). Now, people will need to be blind to not see that the business community in IG spaces is the big global business. Or even much of technical community around also have close relationships with big business. For instance, excellent human beings that the involved persons may be, I could never fathom why ISOC has to take their successive CEOs from the US telco industry, which, if you really look at it, is perhaps the biggest enemy of an 'open Internet' that ISOC professes!. I know by making such assertions I may be sliding into the category of those who could be considered as 'not being able to work with other stakeholders'. What kind of fellow raises questions about the head of the very apex organisation of the tech community! This is the 'chilling effect' that this criterion sets in, if applied loosely... Civil society must beware. Lets get real! In the civil society that I move around in, being too friendly with a Microsoft, or Monsanto or Shell is not considered a virtue ... It is rather more likely to make you suspect... The main raison d'etre of civil society is to ask difficult questions, and ask them ceaselessly, from those in power - include big corporates, and those who run powerful tech organisations. Asking such questions is of course not going to make one popular among them. Dont people here see that by pushing such selection criterion right to the top, one is encouraging a wrong kind of civil society... And why does being able to work with grassroots communities, groups organised around marginalised interests and causes, and well of course, in the global context, with developing country govs not considered as the ability to work with other stakeholders. (In an overwhelming majority of global governance spaces, NGOs have not had good working relationships with at least some developing country govs - trade, IT, climate change, development policy, health, education global governance reform,......). It is important to realise that many who can earn a lot of points about being close to big business or IG tech community are likely to (although not , necessarily) cut a very bad picture if they were to try and engage with these other groups that I mention here... So guys, lets open up our sights to look beyond an increasingly narrow global IG's privileged in-space. ( Vint Cerf can call government types at the ITU as guys with peanut sized brains, and recently reassert that he enjoyed the strong reception that his comments got - but he would still be chosen to head a global multistakeholder IG panel. On the other hand, I may be compromising my 'workability with other stakeholders' even by reporting this fact from news reports in this manner!It is always about power isnt it...But isnt civil society the one that has to resist 'power'? ) Various kind of 'criteria for selection' denote what is valued by a group, which tends to set norms of defining the nature of a group, here of civil society involved in IG spaces.... I think anyone doing any kind of selection should specifically ask for details of how every applicant connects to issues and groups that are typically marginalised and under-represented... And while assessing 'ability of work with other stakeholders' be clear what exactly is meant - including what kind of stakeholders are being considered, and what is the meaning of being able to work with them. parminder On Tuesday 24 December 2013 07:58 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Guru गुरु > wrote: > >> On 12/23/2013 07:52 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi Avri, I couldn't agree more. Plus, there are so many >>> underrepresented views in this space >> >> Jeanette, >> >> I strongly agree with you that there are so many under represented >> views in this space. > > As do I > >> (Basically that the current 'CS' mostly represents a very small >> section of interests.) > > Particularly the most aggressive and persistent.  Others give up and > fall silent et voila, and down and down we spiral into acrimony and > irrelevance, at least in some spaces. >> >> >>> that I wonder if this really makes a solid selection criteria. >>> >> >> However I could not understand this logic -  since there are many >> views under represented let us ignore them? That would only reinforce >> existing hegemonies (which are very strong in the IG space). > > One logic could be that many people who believe their views to be > consistent with advancing the interests of > the underrepresented/marginalized would have opposing positions on > how to do that.  So how then does one select on this criteria, other > than based on the views of the selectors, who’s the most aggressive > and persistent, etc? > > Neither Jeanette, Avri or I are saying CS shouldn’t be concerned > about ensuring representation of underrepresented/marginalized > views/groups, but rather that this is a hard criteria to apply in a > fair and neutral manner in a nomination process.  Why not also say > nominees must also favor freedom?  In contrast, the ability to work > well with other stakeholders, represent one’s SG professionally, and > reflect the range of views in one’s SG are a bit more empirically > assessable. > > Best, > > Bill >> >> On the contrary, I would think the basic legitimacy / unique aspect >> for CS participation is to ensure inclusion of marginalised / under >> represented groups. >> >> regards, >> Guru >> >>> jeanette >>> >> >>> >>> Am 23.12.13 15:15, schrieb Avri Doria: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution us >>>> against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to >>>> stand-in for the diversity that is the  Civil  Society viewpoint. >>>>  Many >>>> time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous >>>> with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'. >>>> >>>> I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also >>>> not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel >>>> out the >>>> views of others who also minority viewpoints.  Even people with >>>> minority >>>> views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent the >>>> diversity of CS view adequately and need to be the sort of people who >>>> can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and >>>> not at >>>> cross-purposes. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this >>>>> criterion. gp >>>>> >>>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>>>> >>>>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ******************************************************************* > 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: From pouzin at well.com Wed Jan 8 06:36:01 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:36:01 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The meeting was between LOG and ICANN. Louis - - - On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi Hartmut, > > [...] > One would greatly prefer that we know who is running the show, and on what > legitimacies.... > > This was supposed to an open, public meeting with globally shared > ownership and all such things.... > > Thanks, parminder > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Adiel Akplogan > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM > Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > To: "discuss at 1net.org" > > Hello all, > > I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update * meeting > between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last > Friday. *Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: > > [..] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Wed Jan 8 06:51:01 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:51:01 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Nomination of Parminder Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM, anita wrote: > Dear Ian/All > > I write this to nominate Parminder to be considered for the Executive > Committee and High Level Committee of the Brazil meeting by the Civil > Society Coordination Committee. > > + 1 Louis > > This nomination is being made jointly by: > > Third World Network (Malaysia) > Third World Institute (Uruguay) > Other News (Italy) > Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (Thailand) > Free Software Movement India (India) > IT for Change (India) > > I enclose details about Parminder for this purpose. > > Thanks and regards > > anita > > -- > > *Anita Gurumurthy* | Executive Director > IT for Change > (*In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)* > 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 > Email:anita at itforchange.net > ------------------------------ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics4 Type: image/png Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics2 Type: image/png Size: 676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics3 Type: image/png Size: 298 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 07:26:46 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 17:56:46 +0530 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 05:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > wrote: > > It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The meeting > was between LOG and ICANN. > > Hmm....i think that may need to be reworded Louis as i don't think > 1NET=ICANN but my understanding is that 1NET=Various Stakeholders > (including ICANN). So i expect the meeting was between LOG and 1NET I remember John Curran, who was at the Monte Video meeting where 1Net idea arose, saying quite recently on this list something to the effect that 1Net is yet just an e- discussion space, and it can become what its steering committee (which hasnt met yet) may want it to become... I havent seen simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and co-shape global meetings. Have you? Does it not appear strange. And for getting such an invitation to come into the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space, one has to really push hard, and have a lot of power. (I know also because some well established civil society groups tried - together - to enter this 'hosting space' and got no response.).. These are power games... 1Net itself is hardly in a position to do the pushing... So whoever has the power and is using it to come to the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space is 1Net at the moment. Follows logically, whether we like it or not. parminder > > I like to be corrected if otherwise? > > Cheers! > > Louis > - - - > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, parminder > > wrote: > > Hi Hartmut, > > [...] > > One would greatly prefer that we know who is running the show, > and on what legitimacies.... > > This was supposed to an open, public meeting with globally > shared ownership and all such things.... > > Thanks, parminder > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Adiel Akplogan* > > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM > Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > To: "discuss at 1net.org " > > > > Hello all, > > I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update > *meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's > LOG and ICANN last Friday. *Here are some key points discussed > during the meeting: > > [..] > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > /Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > //alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > / > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Wed Jan 8 08:42:38 2014 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 08:42:38 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: <52CD176C.7080106@bytesforall.pk> References: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> <52CD176C.7080106@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: + 1 Valeria On 08/01/2014, at 4:16, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > +1. She is untiring and trusted, hugely respected colleague. > > best wishes > Shahzad > > On 1/8/14, 1:11 PM, William Drake wrote: >> +1 Joana would be a perfect fit >> >> Bill >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi > wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> 2014/1/8 Maricarmen Sequera >>> + 1 >>> >>> El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > escribió: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Burcu Kilic >>> Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt > >>> Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" > ,Carolina Rossini > ,Ian Peter ,Lea > Kaspar >>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM >>> To: Andrew Puddephatt >>> Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina > Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" >> digital.org>님 > 이 작성: >>> >>> +1 from me >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Lea Kaspar >>> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 >>> To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter > , "" > >>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina > Rossini >>> Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 >>> To: Ian Peter; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Best Bits colleagues, >>> >>> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the > BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to > represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, > please list her in the final list. :-) >>> >>> Best to all, >>> >>> >>> >>> Carolina >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Carolina Rossini >>> >>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>> >>> Open Technology Institute >>> >>> New America Foundation >>> >>> // >>> >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> >>> skype: carolrossini >>> >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet > Governance (GIG) Ohu >>> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >>> www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ >>> Youtube >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> *********************************************** >> 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 >> *********************************************** >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSzRdsAAoJEAO4UURgT/s1yk8H/jS1uZYA1vt/otjmKrDMJ8Jf > iM5rdL8fILI9JzusGw88R4LARqoEAm1Gb59aYUebmZU8GI55ptB4Rk1DE47AG7ST > r3n31fTQFVEF4B4kXshrViftnW1x9aOt/z0BdefwOBujGHXyBTrOH3iXWqxzdh5I > pkvNFjwGlsbGIjIHUcfgaaENvBtHbyv09QVcIMsync3WyDgNlglkz4vFoGVtKSG+ > IhC9R0BhF2S1ufOdxF1U5N9ZJRpcI3wOfxMkSmAxwHsK5KG2FphXAtmh2Y+RCTqW > wpI27jF5d3rlgmQgclaegSwReXy90bPo4Ymy4b7/Wp+MVo63BpoqaN0L3omxJ6k= > =oleL > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Jan 8 08:52:03 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 08:52:03 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> <52CD176C.7080106@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: +1 Deborah On Jan 8, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > + 1 > > Valeria > > On 08/01/2014, at 4:16, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA512 >> >> +1. She is untiring and trusted, hugely respected colleague. >> >> best wishes >> Shahzad >> >> On 1/8/14, 1:11 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> +1 Joana would be a perfect fit >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi >> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014/1/8 Maricarmen Sequera >>>> + 1 >>>> >>>> El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" >> escribió: >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Burcu Kilic >>>> Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) >>>> To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt >> >>>> Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" >> ,Carolina Rossini >> ,Ian Peter ,Lea >> Kaspar >>>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM >>>> To: Andrew Puddephatt >>>> Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina >> Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님 >> 이 작성: >>>> >>>> +1 from me >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Lea Kaspar >>>> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 >>>> To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter >> , "" >> >>>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini >>>> Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 >>>> To: Ian Peter; >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >>>> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Best Bits colleagues, >>>> >>>> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the >> BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to >> represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, >> please list her in the final list. :-) >>>> >>>> Best to all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Carolina >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Carolina Rossini >>>> >>>> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >>>> >>>> Open Technology Institute >>>> >>>> New America Foundation >>>> >>>> // >>>> >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet >> Governance (GIG) Ohu >>>> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >>>> www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> *********************************************** >>> 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 >>> *********************************************** >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin) >> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSzRdsAAoJEAO4UURgT/s1yk8H/jS1uZYA1vt/otjmKrDMJ8Jf >> iM5rdL8fILI9JzusGw88R4LARqoEAm1Gb59aYUebmZU8GI55ptB4Rk1DE47AG7ST >> r3n31fTQFVEF4B4kXshrViftnW1x9aOt/z0BdefwOBujGHXyBTrOH3iXWqxzdh5I >> pkvNFjwGlsbGIjIHUcfgaaENvBtHbyv09QVcIMsync3WyDgNlglkz4vFoGVtKSG+ >> IhC9R0BhF2S1ufOdxF1U5N9ZJRpcI3wOfxMkSmAxwHsK5KG2FphXAtmh2Y+RCTqW >> wpI27jF5d3rlgmQgclaegSwReXy90bPo4Ymy4b7/Wp+MVo63BpoqaN0L3omxJ6k= >> =oleL >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 09:14:43 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:14:43 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Indeed, indeed, Parminder! The 1net idea was brought to a I-stars meeting after the NSA scandal and the 'trust' crisis/issue over the current asymmetric domination. 1net is an ICANN idea and since then has been pushed by ICANN. It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. "We didn't want to attract attention!! apologized the 11 CEOs part of the I-stars, all them putting their signature at the bottom line of the Montevideo statement ( in reaction to the crisis!). They survived WCIT but not Snowden. Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO in 2013, admitted in a recorded meeting during last ICANN 48 that she and other I-stars CEOs were first reluctant to the 1net idea. Would 1net be a competitor to ISOC and its chapters if you only think of ISOC's view of 1net? Other reasons were discussed. It is crystal clear to any political advisor with some experience that 1net is a political extravaganza set to bring some sort of legitimacy to ICANN and its plan to bake an international dressing and menu, in order to keep as much as possible the asymmetry acceptable. It is also a bright move to try to bring back as many civil society voices under a I-stars overview/control. But some elements of the international civil society are not governable from the US, (when they exist and wherever they are located). 1net has also a dilution effect over the IGF, which is still a UN 'thing'. 1net would take away from the IGF some of its relevance - even though one can admit that the IGF was stalling. The bestbit, the 1net, the High Level Panel by the ICANN... all of that converge to take the IGF down to a not-able venue - We the French have made a word with the not-able, les notables, the ones having the impression that they are the important guys around. No one better than a notable can keep a status quo safe. Notables are usually conservatives (of their status and advantages) by nature. A little bit like the I-stars and their aficionados. ISOC could have been the natural 1net but is too much of a US entity, even though it has offices around the world. The 1net idea is to shift civil society and other Internet actors under an ICANN umbrella, an umbrella being revamped as some sort of International organization (IO). Even though it would be a fake IO, this new ICANN would be an embarrassment to any initiative coming from or endorsed by a multilateral, or international law related, oriented body. The I-stars are defending themselves from trying to lower the IGF capacity. They have recently stated that, indeed, IGF deserves more funds, and that the I-stars should think about giving to the IGF. This UN-WSIS venue is today functioning with a miserable budget, even in comparison to the ICANN communication budget, or the ISOC large revenues thank to PIR and its selling of domains with .net, .org.... With such a poor financial condition, the IGF has to turn to sometime evil government willing to show some good face on the occasion by hosting the IGF meeting. Azerbaijan and others have been financially correct and grata. After all, isn't it fair to associate the UN with rogue states looking for friends. And make sure that everyone confuses the UN with them. Nothing could be more effective than providing notables with some more $ as they enjoy could table, and days of peace in remote location whether in California, Bali or Argentina to meet, discuss and blunder. We all remember that a few notables agreed to be paid for their personal views over IG when attending the London High level panel meeting set by the ICANN few weeks ago. What was the budget on this one? 50 guests... Maybe the IGF would be happy to get this money to investigate more about the financial practice over inter-connected networks and data carriers, providers and miners. Or launch an honest survey of ideas to improve IG practice. So, will the ICANN-1net plan work out? Will it be said: "Tout va bien madame la marquise"? It is not hard to imagine that this will bring legitimate reactions from many 'stakeholders'. Outside of 1net. Outside of ICANN et al. Brazil might already have lost its 'time'. Brazil and others. Enough will soon be enough JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 13:26, parminder a écrit : > > On Wednesday 08 January 2014 05:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The meeting was between LOG and ICANN. >> >> Hmm....i think that may need to be reworded Louis as i don't think 1NET=ICANN but my understanding is that 1NET=Various Stakeholders (including ICANN). So i expect the meeting was between LOG and 1NET > > I remember John Curran, who was at the Monte Video meeting where 1Net idea arose, saying quite recently on this list something to the effect that 1Net is yet just an e- discussion space, and it can become what its steering committee (which hasnt met yet) may want it to become... > > I havent seen simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and co-shape global meetings. Have you? Does it not appear strange. And for getting such an invitation to come into the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space, one has to really push hard, and have a lot of power. (I know also because some well established civil society groups tried - together - to enter this 'hosting space' and got no response.).. These are power games... 1Net itself is hardly in a position to do the pushing... So whoever has the power and is using it to come to the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space is 1Net at the moment. Follows logically, whether we like it or not. > > parminder > >> >> I like to be corrected if otherwise? >> >> Cheers! >> Louis >> - - - >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, parminder wrote: >> Hi Hartmut, >> >> [...] >> >> One would greatly prefer that we know who is running the show, and on what legitimacies.... >> >> This was supposed to an open, public meeting with globally shared ownership and all such things.... >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Adiel Akplogan >> Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM >> Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation >> To: "discuss at 1net.org" >> >> Hello all, >> >> I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: >> >> [..] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 10:12:09 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:42:09 +0530 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52CD6AC9.8080707@itforchange.net> I remember reading somewhere that ICANN has a board decision/ document about the logic of the lead up to the Brazil meeting but that was kept secret.... Is it out now... Or is it purely my imagination, in which case my apologies.. parminder On Wednesday 08 January 2014 08:37 PM, Louis Pouzin wrote: > Superb, and true. > Louis > - - - > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal > wrote: > > Indeed, indeed, Parminder! > > > The 1net idea was brought to a I-stars meeting after the NSA > scandal and the 'trust' crisis/issue over the current asymmetric > domination. 1net is an ICANN idea and since then has been pushed > by ICANN. It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo > statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public > information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars > meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the > I-stars. "We didn't want to attract attention!! apologized the 11 > CEOs part of the I-stars, all them putting their signature at the > bottom line of the Montevideo statement ( in reaction to the > crisis!). They survived WCIT but not Snowden. > > Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO in 2013, admitted in a recorded meeting > during last ICANN 48 that she and other I-stars CEOs were first > reluctant to the 1net idea. Would 1net be a competitor to ISOC and > its chapters if you only think of ISOC's view of 1net? Other > reasons were discussed. > > It is crystal clear to any political advisor with some experience > that 1net is a political extravaganza set to bring some sort of > legitimacy to ICANN and its plan to bake an international dressing > and menu, in order to keep as much as possible the asymmetry > acceptable. It is also a bright move to try to bring back as many > civil society voices under a I-stars overview/control. But some > elements of the international civil society are not governable > from the US, (when they exist and wherever they are located). 1net > has also a dilution effect over the IGF, which is still a UN > 'thing'. 1net would take away from the IGF some of its relevance - > even though one can admit that the IGF was stalling. The bestbit, > the 1net, the High Level Panel by the ICANN... all of that > converge to take the IGF down to a not-able venue - We the French > have made a word with the not-able, /les notables/, the ones > having the impression that they are the important guys around. No > one better than a /notable/ can keep a status quo safe. /Notables/ > are usually conservatives (of their status and advantages) by > nature. A little bit like the I-stars and their /aficionados/. > > ISOC could have been the natural 1net but is too much of a US > entity, even though it has offices around the world. The 1net idea > is to shift civil society and other Internet actors under an ICANN > umbrella, an umbrella being revamped as some sort of International > organization (IO). Even though it would be a fake IO, this new > ICANN would be an embarrassment to any initiative coming from or > endorsed by a multilateral, or international law related, oriented > body. > > The I-stars are defending themselves from trying to lower the IGF > capacity. They have recently stated that, indeed, IGF deserves > more funds, and that the I-stars should think about giving to the > IGF. This UN-WSIS venue is today functioning with a miserable > budget, even in comparison to the ICANN communication budget, or > the ISOC large revenues thank to PIR and its selling of domains > with .net, .org.... With such a poor financial condition, the IGF > has to turn to sometime evil government willing to show some good > face on the occasion by hosting the IGF meeting. Azerbaijan and > others have been financially correct and grata. After all, isn't > it fair to associate the UN with rogue states looking for friends. > And make sure that everyone confuses the UN with them. > > Nothing could be more effective than providing notables with some > more $ as they enjoy could table, and days of peace in remote > location whether in California, Bali or Argentina to meet, discuss > and blunder. We all remember that a few notables agreed to be paid > for their personal views over IG when attending the London High > level panel meeting set by the ICANN few weeks ago. What was the > budget on this one? 50 guests... Maybe the IGF would be happy to > get this money to investigate more about the financial practice > over inter-connected networks and data carriers, providers and > miners. Or launch an honest survey of ideas to improve IG practice. > > So, will the ICANN-1net plan work out? Will it be said: "/Tout va > bien madame la marquise/"? > > It is not hard to imagine that this will bring legitimate > reactions from many 'stakeholders'. Outside of 1net. Outside of > ICANN et al. > > Brazil might already have lost its 'time'. Brazil and others. > > Enough will soon be enough > > JC > > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > > @jc_nothias > > > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 13:26, parminder a écrit : > >> >> On Wednesday 08 January 2014 05:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>> > wrote: >>> >>> It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The >>> meeting was between LOG and ICANN. >>> >>> Hmm....i think that may need to be reworded Louis as i don't >>> think 1NET=ICANN but my understanding is that 1NET=Various >>> Stakeholders (including ICANN). So i expect the meeting was >>> between LOG and 1NET >> >> I remember John Curran, who was at the Monte Video meeting where >> 1Net idea arose, saying quite recently on this list something to >> the effect that 1Net is yet just an e- discussion space, and it >> can become what its steering committee (which hasnt met yet) may >> want it to become... >> >> I havent seen simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and >> co-shape global meetings. Have you? Does it not appear strange. >> And for getting such an invitation to come into the centre of >> Brazil meeting hosting space, one has to really push hard, and >> have a lot of power. (I know also because some well established >> civil society groups tried - together - to enter this 'hosting >> space' and got no response.).. These are power games... 1Net >> itself is hardly in a position to do the pushing... So whoever >> has the power and is using it to come to the centre of Brazil >> meeting hosting space is 1Net at the moment. Follows logically, >> whether we like it or not. >> >> parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Wed Jan 8 10:13:13 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:13:13 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: <52CD176C.7080106@bytesforall.pk> References: <14449949-CC4C-4553-8E5B-4CD3DAD2D803@gmail.com> <52CD176C.7080106@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: <52CD6B09.3090909@softwarefreedom.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 +1 On 01/08/2014 04:16 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > +1. She is untiring and trusted, hugely respected colleague. > > best wishes > Shahzad > > On 1/8/14, 1:11 PM, William Drake wrote: > > +1 Joana would be a perfect fit > > > Bill > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi > wrote: > > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> 2014/1/8 Maricarmen Sequera > >> + 1 > >> > >> El 07/01/2014 19:51, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" > escribió: > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> -------- Original message -------- > >> From: Burcu Kilic > >> Date: 01/07/2014 5:35 PM (GMT-05:00) > >> To: Borami Kim ,Andrew Puddephatt > > >> Cc: ", (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net)" > ,Carolina Rossini > ,Ian Peter ,Lea > Kaspar > >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> > >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Borami Kim > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:22 PM > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt > >> Cc: , (bestbits at lists.bestbits.net); Carolina > Rossini; Ian Peter; Lea Kaspar > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> 2014. 1. 8. 오전 7:18에 "Andrew Puddephatt" 님 > 이 작성: > >> > >> +1 from me > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Lea Kaspar > >> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2014 22:15 > >> To: Carolina Rossini , Ian Peter > , "" > > >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> > >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini > >> Sent: 07 January 2014 22:14 > >> To: Ian Peter; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > >> Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon > >> > >> > >> > >> Dear Best Bits colleagues, > >> > >> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the > BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to > represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, > please list her in the final list. :-) > >> > >> Best to all, > >> > >> > >> > >> Carolina > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Carolina Rossini > >> > >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > >> > >> Open Technology Institute > >> > >> New America Foundation > >> > >> // > >> > >> http://carolinarossini.net/ > >> > >> + 1 6176979389 > >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > >> > >> skype: carolrossini > >> > >> @carolinarossini > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet > Governance (GIG) Ohu > >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > >> www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > *********************************************** > > 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 > > *********************************************** > > > > - -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSzWsFAAoJEEApaiiieuDsIWYQAKbb1KTGggS/9cu0AWCX2ftX bgmcZ6yHiNHJ/x9nut94rkeusDJoQzvBuWgkMP6ZhEmhaVKfFdDeX5br0gaCJW4t KbS7/W4vzvjUzAvIVQrrQtV9uXcnciXe7HH3wJQltqMMI7Lj2CB3H4fjORm6wFsB 4fshlt9fAUgflctiRGWUhExZ/zvJ5HX10/S97IAbUawtVHe1mBmArd5JrelU2O6R M32swhocOgi2io7+q2f1yV68OJuFKUMDm06yHqrqym5E79meA9y/DnusZMpvkmCl rS9ZvJvDVKO2Ui4Ac8iACT7G3fx0sTWeRebGHbn+ObIHpoeDA++8HlL4uG/iteuV 5RAE4A6uQtdrR1G1SYikWXVrzhvfH53GQZC2H0lDmgcYe/FSi557jSROpdRdD8C7 HalEW8Fj7Drula+lMUXuloXg0oVpu+GROudwwuh1B4QL34ZcYc33K5BisHlZKzK0 fFxavmBnY/WGN0w4Qk3CrTMPGJDqx6UmTJ6keYeO58DcPRo5Ca3f3LUs84dq9JRk iBpJ3gHqI9/QaWIHyRQO4E/6vM8ljJlhSYIz4mHzjHgByejffKUIRtgIdAm8jOAH zNB4h51yUNs38+VqMLt0LSKZzSGD1pWAQZJcTW14VxDcZNwohVKrt8gxCM4Sbi/j etZejHc/4rXev7v9/K/2 =vxfP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Wed Jan 8 10:15:57 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:15:57 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation Message-ID: Superb, and true. Louis - - - > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: > >> Indeed, indeed, Parminder! >> >> >> The 1net idea was brought to a I-stars meeting after the NSA scandal and >> the 'trust' crisis/issue over the current asymmetric domination. 1net is an >> ICANN idea and since then has been pushed by ICANN. It is amusing to note >> that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings >> has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! >> The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures >> the I-stars. "We didn't want to attract attention!! apologized the 11 CEOs >> part of the I-stars, all them putting their signature at the bottom line of >> the Montevideo statement ( in reaction to the crisis!). They survived WCIT >> but not Snowden. >> >> Lynn Saint Amour, ISOC CEO in 2013, admitted in a recorded meeting during >> last ICANN 48 that she and other I-stars CEOs were first reluctant to the >> 1net idea. Would 1net be a competitor to ISOC and its chapters if you only >> think of ISOC's view of 1net? Other reasons were discussed. >> >> It is crystal clear to any political advisor with some experience that >> 1net is a political extravaganza set to bring some sort of legitimacy to >> ICANN and its plan to bake an international dressing and menu, in order to >> keep as much as possible the asymmetry acceptable. It is also a bright move >> to try to bring back as many civil society voices under a I-stars >> overview/control. But some elements of the international civil society are >> not governable from the US, (when they exist and wherever they are >> located). 1net has also a dilution effect over the IGF, which is still a UN >> 'thing'. 1net would take away from the IGF some of its relevance - even >> though one can admit that the IGF was stalling. The bestbit, the 1net, the >> High Level Panel by the ICANN... all of that converge to take the IGF down >> to a not-able venue - We the French have made a word with the not-able, *les >> notables*, the ones having the impression that they are the important >> guys around. No one better than a *notable* can keep a status quo safe. >> *Notables* are usually conservatives (of their status and advantages) by >> nature. A little bit like the I-stars and their *aficionados*. >> >> ISOC could have been the natural 1net but is too much of a US entity, >> even though it has offices around the world. The 1net idea is to shift >> civil society and other Internet actors under an ICANN umbrella, an >> umbrella being revamped as some sort of International organization (IO). >> Even though it would be a fake IO, this new ICANN would be an embarrassment >> to any initiative coming from or endorsed by a multilateral, or >> international law related, oriented body. >> >> The I-stars are defending themselves from trying to lower the IGF >> capacity. They have recently stated that, indeed, IGF deserves more funds, >> and that the I-stars should think about giving to the IGF. This UN-WSIS >> venue is today functioning with a miserable budget, even in comparison to >> the ICANN communication budget, or the ISOC large revenues thank to PIR and >> its selling of domains with .net, .org.... With such a poor financial >> condition, the IGF has to turn to sometime evil government willing to show >> some good face on the occasion by hosting the IGF meeting. Azerbaijan and >> others have been financially correct and grata. After all, isn't it fair to >> associate the UN with rogue states looking for friends. And make sure that >> everyone confuses the UN with them. >> >> Nothing could be more effective than providing notables with some more $ >> as they enjoy could table, and days of peace in remote location whether in >> California, Bali or Argentina to meet, discuss and blunder. We all remember >> that a few notables agreed to be paid for their personal views over IG when >> attending the London High level panel meeting set by the ICANN few weeks >> ago. What was the budget on this one? 50 guests... Maybe the IGF would be >> happy to get this money to investigate more about the financial practice >> over inter-connected networks and data carriers, providers and miners. Or >> launch an honest survey of ideas to improve IG practice. >> >> So, will the ICANN-1net plan work out? Will it be said: "*Tout va bien >> madame la marquise*"? >> >> It is not hard to imagine that this will bring legitimate reactions from >> many 'stakeholders'. Outside of 1net. Outside of ICANN et al. >> >> Brazil might already have lost its 'time'. Brazil and others. >> >> Enough will soon be enough >> >> JC >> >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> @jc_nothias >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 10:22:39 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:22:39 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). :-) So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. hugs C On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Dear folks, > > Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks > in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations > with CGI. > > > Carolina > > Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The > point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering > all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover > (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be > such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting > there if not already there. > > *Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable > to us? I request that list members give their response to this. * > > That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent > civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this > arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* > what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to > the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to > be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite > inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly > delayed even after this decision.) > > Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep > us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be > invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not > share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case > the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep > CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened > since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. > Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a > member of LOG. But what about the three of you? > > When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been > officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with > CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to > speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked > for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to > any of our requests.... > > I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking > accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you > all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this > somewhere, in which case please do share it. > > Thanks, parminder > > > > So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email > if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan > > -- > > *Carol (in my personal capacity) * > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 5 00:20:49 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 10:50:49 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52C52DA7.30000@ciroap.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52C52DA7.30000@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52C8EBB1.3060406@itforchange.net> On Thursday 02 January 2014 02:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This is a reminder to put forward your names for selection for the > Brazil meeting committees by midnight UTC 7 January 2014, per the > procedure given below. > > Regarding the draft selection criteria originally posted, a few others > were raised on this list, of which one had fairly wide support, that > "the nominee brings in perspectives/ representation of groups > typically under-represented in global IG processes, and demonstrate > existing linkages and work in this regard" (but the comment was also > made that this should not be applied to give undue weight to minority > views). The arguments for and against this additional criterion have > been well ventilated and the coordinating group will take what it can > from this discussion. > > Surprisingly though we haven't actually had too many actual names put > forward as nominees for the two committees (I have received a couple > privately, but it is much better that they are discussed on the list, > so that support for the names can be gauged). So please do take the > opportunity over the next few days to put your name or someone else's > forward, if you would like to give input into the composition of the > groups. I am not sure what part of the process includes "gauging support on open lists". I request clarification from Ian if this is a part of the process or not... We need to be very particular and fastidious about such processes. It was announced that names may be sent by 7th to be considered by the CS coordination committee... i read nothing about a beauty contest on open lists as being a part of the process. For the record, I am happy to have a process of open online voting being adopted for nominee selection, and even for such a voting to be an open voting. What I protest about is ad hoc ism of processes, as important as those involving nominations. If "gauging support on open list" is not a part of the process it should explicitly be given no weight -age. And if it is a part, it should be openly announced, and all potential candidates given equal opportunity... Although I find such a process quite odd, for many reasons, like, some kinds of people are less open to sending emails about specific supports than others, and - well, Jeremy, since you speak of a discussion on the list - people would hardly ' discuss' people openly... However, I do agree that it is a very good practice to make all nominations, with supporting material, open to the various lists, which can be seen by all... parminder > > Thanks. > > On 22/12/13 13:31, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning >> committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting >> on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 >> and 24 2014. >> >> *• Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC)* >> >> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives >> of the >> >> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >> stakeholders to >> >> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of >> success. >> >> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >> >> • *Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC)* >> >> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >> including: defining >> >> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >> >> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is *midnight UTC* >> 7 * January 2014 >> *. >> >> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >> a statement of relevant background and experience to >> jeremy at ciroap.org or by replying to this >> thread. At the closing date for nominations, those submitted to >> various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the >> Civil Society Co ordination Group. >> >> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >> or both. >> >> CRITERIA >> >> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >> suitability of candidates >> >> 1.Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >> individual civil society organisation(s) >> >> 2.Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >> multistakeholder setting >> >> 3.Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back >> as the process progresses >> >> 4.Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >> discussions >> >> 5.Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of >> civil society perspectives on these issues >> >> 6.Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >> >> *Explanation of process* >> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in >> several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from >> the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet >> governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet >> Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial >> Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive >> Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy >> Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an >> independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the >> boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the >> scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out >> to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness >> of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in >> this process. >> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 10:36:14 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:36:14 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] ITU consultation Message-ID: Hi folks, I know we are all distracted by the preparations to the Brazil meeting. But I just want to call your attention to this ITU consultation - see letter attached. - Deadline - 31 JANUARY 2014 This is part of the process in the US - http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/rls/218739.htm, but I am sure there are similar channels in more countries. So, it would be interesting to learn who will contribute to this. Still incredibly relevant, since it is related to the role of the governments and the role of ITU. And if this moves without our input, and moves faster than what may happen in Brazil....we may be worst at the end. C -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CL170-e.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 84606 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 10:51:19 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:51:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks for your email Carolina, in a few lines you bring a lot of information. It gives a rather grim perspective over the Brazilian conference. Do you confirm that the ICANN's CEO is joining the logistic meeting on Jan 10? Is Dilma Rousseff or any Brazilian Minister joining the so-called fork and knives discussion too (just kidding!)? __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 16:22, Carolina Rossini a écrit : > No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). > :-) > So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. > So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. > hugs > C > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> Dear folks, >> >> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. > > Carolina > > Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. > > Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. > > That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) > > Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? > > When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... > > I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. > > Thanks, parminder > > > >> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >> >> -- >> Carol (in my personal capacity) >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 11:38:24 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:38:24 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I heard Fadi was going. Besides that, nothing else. So, I do hope they clarify. Glaser has also stopped answering our emails. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Thanks for your email Carolina, in a few lines you bring a lot of > information. > > It gives a rather grim perspective over the Brazilian conference. > > Do you confirm that the ICANN's CEO is joining the logistic meeting on Jan > 10? Is Dilma Rousseff or any Brazilian Minister joining the so-called fork > and knives discussion too (just kidding!)? > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 16:22, Carolina Rossini a écrit : > > No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration > going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have > learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did > not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel > communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned > that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was > going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and > then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is > coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to > Fadi). > :-) > So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also > can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. > We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved > (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in > the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list > was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists > week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since > it seems all of you are also in that list. > So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I > assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. > But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. > hugs > C > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> Dear folks, >> >> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks >> in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations >> with CGI. >> >> >> Carolina >> >> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The >> point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering >> all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover >> (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be >> such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting >> there if not already there. >> >> *Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable >> to us? I request that list members give their response to this. * >> >> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four >> prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, >> no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is >> *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to >> Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were >> requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil >> meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter >> got highly delayed even after this decision.) >> >> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep >> us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be >> invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not >> share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case >> the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep >> CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened >> since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. >> Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a >> member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >> >> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been >> officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with >> CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to >> speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked >> for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to >> any of our requests.... >> >> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and >> seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role >> that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an >> explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >> >> Thanks, parminder >> >> >> >> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel >> email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >> >> -- >> >> *Carol (in my personal capacity) * >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 11:40:30 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:40:30 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Nomination of Parminder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: + 1 Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociacion Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2014/1/8 Louis Pouzin (well) > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:15 PM, anita wrote: > >> Dear Ian/All >> >> I write this to nominate Parminder to be considered for the Executive >> Committee and High Level Committee of the Brazil meeting by the Civil >> Society Coordination Committee. >> >> + 1 > Louis > >> >> This nomination is being made jointly by: >> >> Third World Network (Malaysia) >> Third World Institute (Uruguay) >> Other News (Italy) >> Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (Thailand) >> Free Software Movement India (India) >> IT for Change (India) >> >> I enclose details about Parminder for this purpose. >> >> Thanks and regards >> >> anita >> >> -- >> >> *Anita Gurumurthy* | Executive Director >> IT for Change >> (*In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC)* >> 91-80-26654134 | T:00-91-80-26536890 | Fax 91-80-41461055 >> Email:anita at itforchange.net >> ------------------------------ >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics3 Type: image/png Size: 298 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics2 Type: image/png Size: 676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics4 Type: image/png Size: 359 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 8 12:34:32 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 23:04:32 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil meeting -- press release In-Reply-To: <5295D45C.1080801@cafonso.ca> References: <2B591614-6A75-45F5-BD18-B70436F862B4@ipjustice.org> <529511AF.3020804@cafonso.ca> <529524AD.801@apc.org> <5295D45C.1080801@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52CD8C28.8060105@itforchange.net> Forwarding an old email exchange to refresh civil society memories, that seem to rapidly turning short. This was the situation Nov end.. So what happened? Someone need to tell us. Civil society cannot be taken for granted... parminder On Wednesday 27 November 2013 04:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures have > direct access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single conduit. > > And please forgive us for the elementary translation error in the press > release. Of course we meant "governance principles", not "government > principles". The original in Portuguese is correct. > > The best way to reach the commission by email is to write to info at cgi.br > for now (if you wish, please cc. or cco. to me). We should have a more > specific email soon. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/26/2013 08:46 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Thank you very much for this c.a. >> >> Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about >> civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can engage >> constructively with CGI.br? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 26/11/2013 23:25, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Dear people, below is the translation of the CGI.br press release >>> regarding the Brazil Meeting. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> =============== >>> November 26th 2013 >>> >>> Announcement of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee about the >>> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance >>> >>> President Dilma Rousseff’s speech at the United Nations and the >>> Montevideo Statement [1] prompted the opportunity to discuss proposals >>> on a new Internet governance, which became possible by the Brazilian >>> initiative to host the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet >>> Governance. The meeting is scheduled for 23 and 24 April 2014, in São >>> Paulo, and will be organized in a partnership between CGI.br and >>> international entities representing the different sectors involved with >>> Internet governance. >>> >>> The meeting represents an opportunity for government leaders and >>> representatives from different global sectors to discuss proposals about >>> Internet governance and development. The purpose of that meeting is to >>> pursue consensus about universally accepted government principles and to >>> improve their institutional framework. >>> >>> The event shall have the participation of governments, civil society, >>> academy, international organisms and entities, as well as technical and >>> business communities. >>> >>> “We would like to thank the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee for >>> its role organizing that meeting. I genuinely believe that the global >>> Internet community will gather in this truly multistakeholder >>> opportunity with the goal of shaping the future towards the continued >>> prosperity and growth of the Internet”, said Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO at >>> AfriNIC and coordinator of 1Net. >>> >>> President Roussef nominated Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, >>> Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary >>> for Informatics Policies, to coordinate the organization for that meeting. >>> >>> “The Internet Steering Committee acknowledges the opportunity to discuss >>> new paths for the global Internet governance and appreciates the >>> importance of a multistakeholder meeting for those discussions”, said >>> Professor Virgílio Almeida. >>> >>> Four committees shall be created in order to warrant the event’s >>> success. The committees will have the support of a shared secretary, >>> which shall help them to conduct their work and to coordinate the >>> communications. >>> >>> The four meeting committees are: >>> >>> 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the >>> political articulation and fostering the involvement of the >>> international community. >>> >>> 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the >>> event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the >>> treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; >>> >>> 3. Logistics and Organizational Committee: Responsible for overseeing >>> every logistic aspect of the meeting; >>> >>> 4. Governmental Advisory Committee: Will stay open to all governments >>> which want to contribute to the meeting. >>> >>> The meeting will allow face-to-face and remote participation of the >>> global community. Mechanisms and the schedule for receiving inputs of >>> the global community will be established. >>> >>> E-Mail for contact and input => info at cgi.br >>> >>> =========== >>> >>> [1] http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/a-07oct13-en.htm >>> >>> From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 13:08:40 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:08:40 +0000 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: ... It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. Jean-Christophe - Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past have been generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see fit, e.g. - From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Jan 8 13:25:08 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 13:25:08 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] ITU consultation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Carolina, all, Thanks for sharing this important information and for keeping us focused :) Just to clarify, these are actually two different ITU consultations. The one announced in the attachment is the Public Consultation on ITU’s Strategic Plan for 2016-2019. The link from the State Department is for a separate consultation on the role of governments. The consultation on the ITU's strategic plan is *open to the public* with a online platform for comments. Based on the information Carolina sent it looks like the basis for comment is a chairman's report ( http://www.itu.int/en/council/wg-sfp/Documents/contribution-chairman-en.pdf) but I don't see any specific prompts for feedback. It's a rather long document (85 pgs), but it seems to deal with some issues that some parts of civil society have been concerned with before, i.e. transparency, the ITU's role, etc. Does anyone know more about the process, its implications, etc? For those interested in following the ITU, this may be an important/rare opportunity to input into plenipot. The consultation on the role of governments is *open to Member States only*(funnily enough). But Member States are invited "to consult wide with their stakeholders in the formulation of their responses." So the link that Carolina sent around is the State Department's open consultation, which adds two questions to the initial question on the role of governments: the role of the ITU and existing venues addressing issues. My understanding is that the US is accepting input from stakeholders outside the US and has set a deadline of Friday, 10 January for input. As Carol notes, other governments may be carrying out similar efforts, and since the ITU's deadline isn't until 31 January, there may still be some time. Just one more point on the consultation on the role of governments. According to the Chair's report from the most recent CWG-Internet (available on WCITLeaks http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-RCLINTPOL3-C-0010!!MSW-E.pdf, but otherwise behind TIES protection) "3. The information on the questionnaire will be made publically available on the ITU website. *The CWG will hold an open multistakeholder consultation on the role of governments immediately after its next meeting in March 2014* , based on contributions by Member States." (top of page 7) So for those who feel this is an important thread to follow, it may be worth thinking ahead to the March CWG-Internet meeting and what we would want a MS consultation on the role of governments to look like, what's needed to get there, etc. I second Carolina's question of being interested in who is planning to contribute to these consultations. Both are on our radar and we'd be interested in hearing others' ideas on pros/cons and any information that others can share. Apologies for the long email, and please correct anything I might have incorrect here (pulling together info from different threads...) Kind regards, Deborah On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I know we are all distracted by the preparations to the Brazil meeting. > But I just want to call your attention to this ITU consultation - see > letter attached. - Deadline - 31 JANUARY 2014 > > This is part of the process in the US - > http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/rls/218739.htm, but I am sure there are > similar channels in more countries. > > So, it would be interesting to learn who will contribute to this. Still > incredibly relevant, since it is related to the role of the governments and > the role of ITU. And if this moves without our input, and moves faster than > what may happen in Brazil....we may be worst at the end. > > C > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 14:15:16 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:15:16 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> John, My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 19:08, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> ... >> It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. > > Jean-Christophe - > > Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past have been > generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see fit, e.g. - > > From >> 6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting >> >> Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-30 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments and the IANA RFP. > > From: >> • NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Florida – Hosted by ARIN >> – Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s >> – Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IETF (I*) Executives > > etc. > > Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the various Internet organizations > have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together than via many one-on-one meetings. > Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in press releases) but information about > their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certainly in the public as noted above, > and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 8 14:33:20 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 06:33:20 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> Hi Jean- Christophe, One correction to your excellent summary Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon ) The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various constituencies but as the technical community reps have not been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term brief than the Brazil meeting. Ian Peter From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM To: Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons for the mess (not always but...). A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand it now, its title might be: ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my information to the listings) When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level of concern? From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. Who are the Organizers? Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet Conference? One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? Who are the Representatives of the Organizers? Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "Brazilian Internet Steering Committee". This committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee, or an ICANN and BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee. For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". Who are the Representatives for all IG participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the multistakeholder story)? After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of participation. Who are the other governments participating? No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)? - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) - ICANN representatives? - Others? ... (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting website) Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his answer yet. - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed something here) - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member at the BI SC. Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare the event under the BI SC overview? This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. We don not know about other names. Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting? LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments representatives are expected. The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for the event. Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not too demanding. The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time on this. Thanks in advance JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Dear folks, Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. Carolina Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. - a. Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: Rafik Dammak Anriette Esterhuysen Anja Kovacs Vladimir Radunovik Joana Varon Marilia Maciel as back-up. Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. Adam Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. Thanks, parminder So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan -- Carol (in my personal capacity) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 14:35:42 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:35:42 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] emails to Adiel In-Reply-To: <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> References: <52CCE61B.1080906@itforchange.net> <410CEF2F-0475-4BF1-B26E-6603A9EAFBEF@glocom.ac.jp> <3720A7B4-EF31-457C-BD8D-6D3129B90AF6@theglobaljournal.net> <3EE39CEF6927469C9CA160D5D9DD84AE@Toshiba> Message-ID: <900F4866-1509-4590-B4B5-815C402AE627@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks Ian. I will include this is a later version. JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:33, Ian Peter a écrit : > Hi Jean- Christophe, > > One correction to your excellent summary > > Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) > > The 5 names you mention are CS reps on the 1net Steering Committee – a different entity altogether. (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon ) > > The 1net steering committee mailing list I think was set up about 2 days ago with the reps chosen by various constituencies but as the technical community reps have not been chosen yet is not fully populated. It has a longer term brief than the Brazil meeting. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > From: Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:08 PM > To: Adam Peake ; brmeeting at cgi.br > Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; igfmaglist-owner at intgovforum.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel > > Behind mis-communication and confusion, there might be some good reasons for the mess (not always but...). > > A good story is beginning to take shape, and as far as we can understand it now, its title might be: > ICANN invites ICANN to BRAZIL to debate IG > > So now just trying to get things rights (and calling for editing my information to the listings) > > When visiting the new website (online since Jan7, 2014) set for the purpose of the meeting (brmeeting.br), only minor informations are available. Quite a surprise for such an ambitious conference and serious issue. In the section 'About' we find a map for the location of the venue, and its address. In the 'Announcements' section, there is one 1 release dated Nov 26, 2013, and a link to ICANN announcement dated Oct 7, 2013. In the section 'Committees' we find 4 committees described with 3 phrases. The last section 'Accommodations' presents the 3 hotels and their contact info. In the 'Contact' section, you click to pop up an email. > > This is rather minimalist, to say the least, for a new website. Is Brazil lacking some funds and means to get this website to the appropriate level of concern? > > From diverse emails, I end up with the following information. > > Who are the Organizers? > Officially, we have BRAZIL and ICANN with the support of the other I* (see Montevideo Statement mention) meaning ISOC, IETF, RIRs... > > Who is chairing the Brazilian Multistakeholder Conference on Internet Conference? > One delegate from the Brazilian Government, one from ICANN and 2 additional persons chosen by BRAZIL and ICANN**. Names?? > > Who are the Representatives of the Organizers? > Officially the one entity which role is to organize the meeting is a "Brazilian Internet Steering Committee". This committee is not per say Brazilian as it embeds ICANN representatives and Brazilian representatives. It should be a US-BRAZILIAN Internet Steering Committee, or an ICANN and BRAZIL Internet Steering Committee. > > For Brazil the head representative is Virgilio F. Almeda. Officially he is the coordinator. The name of the ICANN delegate is not available on the meeting's website. Almeda is also the coordinator of a secretariat. It seems like this secretariat will handle the organization of the meeting AND the 'coordination/management/inter-communication within the committees (see below). We have no specific information about the "shared secretariat". > > Who are the Representatives for all IG participants/specialists/priesthood/stakeholders (remember the multistakeholder story)? > After its first meeting the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee BI SC (unclear who took the decision within the BI SC) has expressed desire for a "filter" with the many stakeholders part of the IG debate (Too much work, too little time). Something quite unexpected for two reasons. Setting a multistakeholder conference with a single filter sounds odd, specially when this filter has no existence, no constituencies, no mandate, no membership, no board, no proper information flow. What we know about this filter (1net) is that it was set by ICANN, and the other I* (mostly constituents of the current status quo and its asymmetric US role over the Internet). And it was presented, if not endorsed (no reason for ICANN to ask the IGF to endorse a private initiative) during the last IGF Bali meeting. > Everyone familiar with the IG debate would have bet that an IGF delegation would have been the best "filter" to prepare the multistakeholder conference. Or a direct and open system of call for participation. > > *let's be positive, as a remote participation will be allowed, organizers will be able to share a feeling of participation. > > Who are the other governments participating? > No idea so far, but Brazilian ambition on this seems to be at a low 12-government guest cards. I would bet that the US will not participate as most of the US delegation present at WCIT 2012 will be there anyway through the I*. > > Who are the members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC)? > - Virgilio Almeda for the Brazilian government. > - Hartmut Richard Glaser for LOG, CGI.br > - Adiel Akplogan on behalf of the I* (himself at AFRINIC ) under the umbrella of the 1net UFO (© ICANN). > - 3 civil society stakeholders : Carolina Rossini (New America Foundation), Joana Varon Ferraz (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Laura (Joana and Laura are also part of the 1net steering committee or 1net steercom) > - ICANN representatives? > - Others? > ... > (sorry but I do not have the full list of the participants of the first BI SC, and no official information is available online on the brmeeting website) > > Who are the potential known other members of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (BI SC) > - Adiel Akplogan for 1net has asked for members of the 1net steering committee to be included in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Btw, Carolina Rossini asked for the names of the 1net steercom reps to Adiel but we haven't seen his answer yet. > - The IG listings (bestbits IG) have suggested 5 names to participate in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (Rafik Dammak; Anriette Esterhuysen; Anja Kovacs; Vladimir Radunovik; Joana Varon (she is already in through 1net). With a 'back-up': Marilia Maciel. So far no formal feedback from them after the first BI SC meeting (maybe I have missed something here) > - 4 liaisons to the BI SC are requested on behalf of another civil society network (see Parminder et al letter sent in 2013) > * I am not sure of what is the difference between a liaison and a member at the BI SC. > > Who are the members of the 4 stakeholder committees supposed to prepare the event under the BI SC overview? > This should be announced by mi January. Who is appointing them? Not quite clear but it seems to be that the BISC will finalize the names in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN). > The IG listings have been collecting names and an ad hoc selection committee is now reviewing the final selection. The final names selected will be sent to the BI SC for approval. > For other nominations, the BICS in agreement with the organizers (BRAZIL and ICANN) should decide and announce the names. > We don not know about other names. > > > Who are the members of the informal meetings such as the Jan 10 meeting? > LOG (Hartmut et al) and a 1net representative designated by 1net steering committee. Brazilian government representative(s). No other governments representatives are expected. > The agenda of the meeting is not published. We have been told that the meeting will discuss logistic, including the remote participation issue for the event. > Joana (member of the 1net SC, and BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include other members of the 1net SC (Jan 7) in this meeting > Carolina (member of the BI SC) asked Hartmut (BI SC) to include the 3 civil society stakeholders members of the BI SC be invited to the Jan 7 meeting (Joana, Laura and Carolina) > > Of course, all of that should come with the usual criteria of goodwill > ** Participants are requested to be able to work together and in all circumstances be able to represent the diversity of views > ** Participants should talk on an equal footing with other participants > * As schedule is tight, participants should be happy with all the mismatches, odd decisions, and possible troubleshooting. And therefore not too demanding. > > The original criteria listing for selecting participants to the 4 committees is here (source Ian Peter - Dec 22, 2013) > 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) > 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting > 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses > 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions > 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues > 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > I would really appreciate that all errors, mistakes, complement of information, or new information be pushed forward. I hope this contribute to establish clarity about the process and help overall understanding. > > Too bad Hartmut didn't answer my previous questions. Thanks for your time on this. > > Thanks in advance > JC > > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 07:54, Adam Peake a écrit : > >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>> Dear folks, >>>> >>>> Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI. >>> >>> Carolina >>> >>> Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there. >>> >> >> Seems like a lot of mis-communication all round. >> >> Adiel will not be at the meeting on Jan 10th. Email from the 1Net discuss list: >> >> >>> >>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >>> >>>> I won't be in Brazil. I have already asked if the /1net steercom reps can attend the meeting at least as observer, awaiting for answer from the LOC. >>>> >>>> - a. >> >> >> >> Let's wait and see how the local organizers respond to his request to have steering committee members attend. I am beginning to loose track of committee/nominations, etc., but believe we have selected five steering committee members: >> >> Rafik Dammak >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Anja Kovacs >> Vladimir Radunovik >> Joana Varon >> >> Marilia Maciel as back-up. >> >> Can't imagine there's anyway to have all five attend in person :-) But there are ways to have input. Hopefully the committee at least has a list. And if some of the other Brazil CS liaisons are available at such short notice, suggest we ask they + Marilia be invited to attend as proxies. Perhaps one of the 5 steering committee members could make this request? >> >> We now have about 11 weeks until the end of March when meeting needs to be in near final shape. Time will always mess up our hopes for good process, let's work with what we have... and thanks to those volunteering to help. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. >>> >>> That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.) >>> >>> Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you? >>> >>> When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests.... >>> >>> I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seeking accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. >>> >>> Thanks, parminder >>> >>> >>> >>>> So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Carol (in my personal capacity) >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jan 5 01:14:33 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 17:14:33 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52C8EBB1.3060406@itforchange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52C52DA7.30000@ciroap.org> <52C8EBB1.3060406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, I think you answered your own question when you stated “However, I do agree that it is a very good practice to make all nominations, with supporting material, open to the various lists, which can be seen by all...” which I think is what Jeremy was also suggesting as well. But to make things clear, there is no beauty contest process involved, and multiple lists are involved in calling for nominations, all of which may be a little different in the way they go about this. Ian From: parminder Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 4:20 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees On Thursday 02 January 2014 02:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: This is a reminder to put forward your names for selection for the Brazil meeting committees by midnight UTC 7 January 2014, per the procedure given below. Regarding the draft selection criteria originally posted, a few others were raised on this list, of which one had fairly wide support, that "the nominee brings in perspectives/ representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes, and demonstrate existing linkages and work in this regard" (but the comment was also made that this should not be applied to give undue weight to minority views). The arguments for and against this additional criterion have been well ventilated and the coordinating group will take what it can from this discussion. Surprisingly though we haven't actually had too many actual names put forward as nominees for the two committees (I have received a couple privately, but it is much better that they are discussed on the list, so that support for the names can be gauged). So please do take the opportunity over the next few days to put your name or someone else's forward, if you would like to give input into the composition of the groups. I am not sure what part of the process includes "gauging support on open lists". I request clarification from Ian if this is a part of the process or not... We need to be very particular and fastidious about such processes. It was announced that names may be sent by 7th to be considered by the CS coordination committee... i read nothing about a beauty contest on open lists as being a part of the process. For the record, I am happy to have a process of open online voting being adopted for nominee selection, and even for such a voting to be an open voting. What I protest about is ad hoc ism of processes, as important as those involving nominations. If "gauging support on open list" is not a part of the process it should explicitly be given no weight -age. And if it is a part, it should be openly announced, and all potential candidates given equal opportunity... Although I find such a process quite odd, for many reasons, like, some kinds of people are less open to sending emails about specific supports than others, and - well, Jeremy, since you speak of a discussion on the list - people would hardly ' discuss' people openly... However, I do agree that it is a very good practice to make all nominations, with supporting material, open to the various lists, which can be seen by all... parminder Thanks. On 22/12/13 13:31, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 January 2014. If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a statement of relevant background and experience to jeremy at ciroap.org or by replying to this thread. At the closing date for nominations, those submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. CRITERIA The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the suitability of candidates 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively Explanation of process The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this process. Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other suggestions for improvement of the joint process. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 14:45:45 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:45:45 +0000 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. You claimed "the existence of these meetings has now become a public information"... If you mean that that they now are more visible, then we're in agreement (and quite expected given the Montevideo Statement) However, implying that there was no public information available previously and that the very existence of these meetings was unavailable to the public is a specious claim. > Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. Not anything close to a "governing board", just the leaders of the existing organizations getting together to coordinate actions between their organizations (and their certainly with no imprimatur of any country) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From bkilic at citizen.org Wed Jan 8 14:47:52 2014 From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 13:47:52 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Advisory- Talk by expert from Obama's NSA review panel In-Reply-To: <9B2DEC3C4C02224C83C5C0EE3049BAC0039ED0D2@MBX41.exg5.exghost.com> References: <9B2DEC3C4C02224C83C5C0EE3049BAC0039ED0D2@MBX41.exg5.exghost.com> Message-ID: <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B9F50039B@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> Public Citizen to Host Talk With Member of Obama’s NSA Surveillance Review Group, First Amendment Scholar Geoffrey Stone In Aftermath of Snowden Leaks, Obama Tapped University of Chicago Law School Professor for Special Panel to Analyze, Report, Recommend Jan. 8, 2014 Contact: Barbara Holzer (202) 588-7716 Karilyn Gower (202) 588-7779 WHAT: A symposium with Geoffrey Stone, University of Chicago’s Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law. Stone was one of five top-echelon experts in law and intelligence appointed by President Barack Obama to a panel charged with assessing the National Security Administration’s (NSA) overreaching surveillance policies in the wake of revelations by Edward Snowden. Panel members were given top-secret clearances and a relatively short timeline – less than four months – to make recommendations. On Dec. 12, the panel submitted its findings in a 300-page public report, “Liberty and Security in a Changing World.” The group recommended 46 reforms that would “recalibrate” the way our intelligence community works. Formerly the provost of the University of Chicago and dean of its law school, Stone was chairman of the board of the American Constitution Society and has written numerous books on constitutional law, including “Top Secret: When the Government Keeps Us in the Dark,” “War and Liberty: An American Dilemma” and “Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime.” WHEN: 12-1 p.m. EST, Thurs., Jan. 16 WHERE: Public Citizen, 1600 20th St. N.W., Washington, D.C. (at 20th and Q Sts., N.W.) WHO: Geoffrey Stone, member of The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen; moderator RSVP: Due to limited seating, please register for the event as soon as possible by emailing bholzer at citizen.org. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 14:50:02 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:50:02 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board. Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:43, Shatan, Gregory S. a écrit : > I’m confused. What “grouping” are you stating is under a “direct mandate” of the “US trade department”? > > Greg Shatan > > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:15 PM > To: John Curran > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser > Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation > > John, > > My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. > > Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. > > JC > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 19:08, John Curran a écrit : > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > ... > It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. > > Jean-Christophe - > > Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past have been > generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see fit, e.g. - > > From > 6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting > > Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-30 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments and the IANA RFP. > > From: > • NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Florida – Hosted by ARIN > – Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s > – Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IETF (I*) Executives > > etc. > > Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the various Internet organizations > have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together than via many one-on-one meetings. > Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in press releases) but information about > their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certainly in the public as noted above, > and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > > * * * > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. > * * * > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein. > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 15:21:38 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:38 +0000 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <0DF74228-514A-496C-850A-A12B6CF63B4F@arin.net> On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board. Wow. I am actually not even sure how to respond to the above given the layers of error but obviously must start somewhere - ICANN does have a NTIA contract to perform "IANA Functions.", which includes the administration of various registries of parameter values for Internet protocols. ICANN also has an MOU with the IAB/IETF (RFC 2860) to carry out certain tasks, consisting of the administration of various registries of parameter values for Internet protocols. That is actually two mandates; both are specifically applicable to the IANA tasks. The IANA tasks are a very small part of ICANN, and trying to point to the IANA contract as a USG "link" to ICANN's greater overall activities make no sense. Yes, there is a Affirmation of Commitments that has effect on ICANN's activities, and a GAC that has impact, but the IANA contract itself doesn't provide useful control (except under the "nuclear" option of its cancelation) The I* leader coordination meetings have no mandate, patronage, or funding from the USG. In fact, they've been convened generally by Lynn St. Amour of ISOC, with each participant picking up travel and related costs. You might as well assert that both IGF and UN also come under the USG's patronage as a result of ICANN's contribution... And finally, none of the above relates to "1net", which may have be consequential to the Montevideo Statement, but in fact will determine its purpose and methods once it has a seated coordinating/steering committee. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jan 8 15:21:48 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:21:48 +0000 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> ,<52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2D1E4B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, "simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and co-shape global meetings" has been happening since there's been e-lists. Creating a virtual community can be a big thing, a little thing, or nothing. In the 1net case, what exactly 'it' is may be unclear still for some time as the clock unwinds to and beyond the Brazil meeting. Speaking as one not yet on the list, and hence not in the latest virtual club, I too am suspicious of a club that would have me. ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 7:26 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: Louis Pouzin (well); <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; 1Net List; Hartmut Glaser; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation On Wednesday 08 January 2014 05:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > wrote: It's crystal clear in the beginning of Adiel's report. The meeting was between LOG and ICANN. Hmm....i think that may need to be reworded Louis as i don't think 1NET=ICANN but my understanding is that 1NET=Various Stakeholders (including ICANN). So i expect the meeting was between LOG and 1NET I remember John Curran, who was at the Monte Video meeting where 1Net idea arose, saying quite recently on this list something to the effect that 1Net is yet just an e- discussion space, and it can become what its steering committee (which hasnt met yet) may want it to become... I havent seen simple e-lists being suddenly invited to co-own and co-shape global meetings. Have you? Does it not appear strange. And for getting such an invitation to come into the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space, one has to really push hard, and have a lot of power. (I know also because some well established civil society groups tried - together - to enter this 'hosting space' and got no response.).. These are power games... 1Net itself is hardly in a position to do the pushing... So whoever has the power and is using it to come to the centre of Brazil meeting hosting space is 1Net at the moment. Follows logically, whether we like it or not. parminder I like to be corrected if otherwise? Cheers! Louis - - - On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, parminder > wrote: Hi Hartmut, [...] One would greatly prefer that we know who is running the show, and on what legitimacies.... This was supposed to an open, public meeting with globally shared ownership and all such things.... Thanks, parminder ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan > Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:03 PM Subject: [discuss] Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation To: "discuss at 1net.org" > Hello all, I have been invited (for /1Net) to attend a status update meeting between the representatives of the Brazil meeting's LOG and ICANN last Friday. Here are some key points discussed during the meeting: [..] _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 15:24:02 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:24:02 -0500 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi John, On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: > > ... > > It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence > of these meetings has now become a public information - a > very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized > before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. > > > Jean-Christophe - > > Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past > have been > generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see > fit, e.g. - Plus some of us see where you fly, who you eat with eat and drink with, etc., via social media, so Montevideo was no secret in that regard. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 15:26:10 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 21:26:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> Message-ID: Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:45, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. > > You claimed "the existence of these meetings has now become a public information"... If you > mean that that they now are more visible, then we're in agreement (and quite expected given > the Montevideo Statement) We agree on this > > However, implying that there was no public information available previously and that the very > existence of these meetings was unavailable to the public is a specious claim. What Lynn Saint Amour said is that these meetings were not publicized on purpose. A rather odd strategy of communication in a world that claims transparency against all behind-the-doors meetings by others. The point to know if there was a public information available or not is not really the point. The point is the 'intention'. The will behind a situation. This is what is so important in LSA statement. On the contrary, implying that there was a public information available, and that the very existence of these meetings was known from the public is a specious disclaim. :-) > >> Given the nature of the Internet, (no one owns the Internet, and all that bla-bla), it is amusing to finally come to a point where we suddenly have a grouping coordinating ... under the I* naming, appearing to be the governing board, under a direct mandate of the US trade department, and with the financial support of the major players. These meetings should have been publicized much more. And indeed, then, it is no surprise to have this coordination existing. > > Not anything close to a "governing board", just the leaders of the existing organizations getting > together to coordinate actions between their organizations (and their certainly with no imprimatur > of any country) Again, such regular meetings can be named whatever one wishes to, the coordination done during these meetings is not about the size of the fonts on your respective websites. When discussing which strategy is to defined in reaction to the WCIT or NSA trust IG crisis (part of the asymmetric situation we are all dealing with), and then coming up with a publicized or not publicized idea such as the 1net, is exactly what a governing body is about: think and make decision in order to act upon events and people. In the open or in the hidden. At this stage we have no information if other 'ideas' had emerged from these meetings. Maybe yes, maybe no. By the way, I find the I-stars naming really cool. I prefer it to the G20 naming. I hope you had a good drink over this one. The Internet Stars!! No offense John. JC Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor The Global Project > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 8 15:43:49 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 07:43:49 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration Message-ID: <5E45CAA30C144DDF92DDB0917E9D49BE@Toshiba> Thanks everyone for prompt replies – below is a summary of your responses and the candidates still under consideration (although there is nothing to stop us bringing forward other names later on if we want to) HLC Carolina Rossini – 3.5 votes Jovan K – 3 votes Mark Rotenberg – 3 votes Joana Varon 2.5 votes Milton Mueller 2 votes Parminder Singh 2 votes Stephanie Perrin 1 vote Louis Pouzin 1 vote Marilia Maciel 1 vote SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES The brief here is “This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success” Bear in mind also that (my paraphrasing) the aim of the meeting seems to be to develop a set of high level principles for Internet Governance. We dont know yet whether we need 3 or 4 candidates, and probably wont know till Saturday. I think our aim between now and then should be to try and narrow down our field a bit and eliminate some names if possible. But in doing so: Carolina Rossini, Jovan K and Marc Rotenberg got the most support initially – not that we need to be bound by this. They are all impressive candidates. If Marc was in, we probably couldn’t include Milton – 2 US males would not be a good decision politically. Milton also probably fits as an academic – but as he is likely to be running the process to select academic candidates, he may not be able to include himself. Maybe we should seek clarification here? If Carolina was in, we probably wouldn’t include Joana or Marilia None of our first 3 would be considered to be a strong advocate for third world issues. If we thought it was important to include someone with this perspective, the choices would be Louis Pouzin or Parminder Singh. Parminder has indicated he would step down in favour of Louis Pouzin, and we may need to consider that Parminder is a member of the CI (Community Informatics) Nomcom also considering candidates for these very same positions (but with about 6 candidates and very little chance of their nominees being accepted) . That may be perceived as a conflict of interest, or we could ignore it. But some people have already suggested to me informally that Parminder has a conflict of interest here. Also to just note re Stephanie Perrin – if Marc Rotenberg was in we might consider we have privacy issues well covered; but if in our final slate we wanted to include Milton and leave Marc out to not have too many male US citizens Stephanie is an option to cover privacy. So lots of issues.Let’s discuss and see if we can narrow down a little while we await info as to whether we need 3 or 4 names. EC Marilia Maciel 3.5 votes Adam Peake 3 votes Joana Varon 2 votes Nadira Alaraj 1.5 votes Carolina Rossini 1.5 votes Stephanie Perrin 1 vote Norbert Bollow 1 vote Birgitta Jonsdottr .5 Parminder Singh .5 SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES The brief here is “This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives”. I think we need to determine HLC before finalising here. However Marilia and Adam have the strongest support at this stage. We again face the issue here of having a strong advocate for third world issues as a factor in deciding our final 2. Over to you all for comments, suggestions, and attempts to narrow this down further! Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From claudio at derechosdigitales.org Wed Jan 8 15:57:18 2014 From: claudio at derechosdigitales.org (Claudio Ruiz) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 17:57:18 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Jan 7, 2014, at 19:13, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Dear Best Bits colleagues, > > I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) > > Best to all, > > Carolina > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Wed Jan 8 15:58:25 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 15:58:25 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination - Joana Varon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52CDBBF1.8000107@eff.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 +1 On 01/08/2014 03:57 PM, Claudio Ruiz wrote: > +1 > > On Jan 7, 2014, at 19:13, Carolina Rossini > > > wrote: > >> Dear Best Bits colleagues, >> >> I just want to be sure this nomination also circulates in the >> BestBits list. I do believe our Joana Varon could be a great name >> to represent Civil Society in the EC for the Brazilian >> Conference. Ian, please list her in the final list. :-) >> >> Best to all, >> >> Carolina >> >> >> >> -- *Carolina Rossini* /Project Director, Latin America Resource >> Center/ Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * >> skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> . To unsubscribe or change >> your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSzbvxAAoJEKzWRbtvalQySqMH/0jyKA4v0AWSOI+wS7rr8kbC PDCsRp/jzxLK29Dlcpbx6gahRXGX/mDaA+GETgapqGiS/z5p8pQ89v2CLTr27PJX gzpr+JliyCn+vvaPrCqS0z/4haioxd9j9DrNeM3F+ydUmwWsHqU1R4y6lqOCJojm zEfxrI3ZELgRpUA0iwKcB6mUOP51eE3xKhV+G7clLJbTpgVctE38s3YTmuujh7jO xcp+SzYuSaTZMzFUOp+WVWat0HpJPzrjxhDMOMNozppNpbpdqtwWNLwKtCAt3zE2 flLEYhl0FHAYiynA1I0bUoAbXM2WAHSDTsC4n3+p/0ICXiOTKInR2roe1E8R5Hk= =fae8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 5 01:26:37 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 11:56:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52C52DA7.30000@ciroap.org> <52C8EBB1.3060406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52C8FB1D.6010602@itforchange.net> On Sunday 05 January 2014 11:44 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Parminder, I think you answered your own question when you stated > “However, I do agree that it is a very good practice to make all > nominations, with supporting material, open to the various lists, > which can be seen by all...” > which I think is what Jeremy was also suggesting as well. But to make > things clear, there is no beauty contest process involved, and > multiple lists are involved in calling for nominations, all of which > may be a little different in the way they go about this. Thanks Ian for the explanation... Although , Jeremy clearly suggested a 'discussion' on names, and 'gauging' f support' for different names. But good to know from you that this is not a part of the process or anything. parminder > Ian > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Sunday, January 05, 2014 4:20 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call to Best Bits participants for > nominations to Brazil meeting committees > On Thursday 02 January 2014 02:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> This is a reminder to put forward your names for selection for the >> Brazil meeting committees by midnight UTC 7 January 2014, per the >> procedure given below. >> >> Regarding the draft selection criteria originally posted, a few >> others were raised on this list, of which one had fairly wide >> support, that "the nominee brings in perspectives/ representation of >> groups typically under-represented in global IG processes, and >> demonstrate existing linkages and work in this regard" (but the >> comment was also made that this should not be applied to give undue >> weight to minority views). The arguments for and against this >> additional criterion have been well ventilated and the coordinating >> group will take what it can from this discussion. >> >> Surprisingly though we haven't actually had too many actual names put >> forward as nominees for the two committees (I have received a couple >> privately, but it is much better that they are discussed on the list, >> so that support for the names can be gauged). So please do take the >> opportunity over the next few days to put your name or someone else's >> forward, if you would like to give input into the composition of the >> groups. > > I am not sure what part of the process includes "gauging support on > open lists". I request clarification from Ian if this is a part of the > process or not... We need to be very particular and fastidious about > such processes. It was announced that names may be sent by 7th to be > considered by the CS coordination committee... i read nothing about a > beauty contest on open lists as being a part of the process. For the > record, I am happy to have a process of open online voting being > adopted for nominee selection, and even for such a voting to be an > open voting. What I protest about is ad hoc ism of processes, as > important as those involving nominations. If "gauging support on open > list" is not a part of the process it should explicitly be given no > weight -age. And if it is a part, it should be openly announced, and > all potential candidates given equal opportunity... Although I find > such a process quite odd, for many reasons, like, some kinds of people > are less open to sending emails about specific supports than others, > and - well, Jeremy, since you speak of a discussion on the list - > people would hardly ' discuss' people openly... > > However, I do agree that it is a very good practice to make all > nominations, with supporting material, open to the various lists, > which can be seen by all... > > parminder > >> >> Thanks. >> >> On 22/12/13 13:31, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on >>> planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder >>> Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on >>> April 23 and 24 2014. >>> >>> *• Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC)* >>> >>> This committee will set the high ­level political tone and >>> objectives of the >>> >>> conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with >>> stakeholders to >>> >>> encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances >>> of success. >>> >>> This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. >>> >>> • *Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC)* >>> >>> This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, >>> including: defining >>> >>> conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input >>> received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to >>> address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing >>> all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This >>> committee will include 2 civil society representatives >>> >>> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is *midnight >>> UTC* 7 *January 2014 >>> *. >>> >>> If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and >>> a statement of relevant background and experience to >>> jeremy at ciroap.org or by replying to this >>> thread. At the closing date for nominations, those submitted to >>> various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the >>> Civil Society Co ordination Group. >>> >>> Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether >>> it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) >>> or both. >>> >>> CRITERIA >>> >>> The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the >>> suitability of candidates >>> >>> 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your >>> individual civil society organisation(s) >>> >>> 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a >>> multistakeholder setting >>> >>> 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to >>> report back as the process progresses >>> >>> 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these >>> discussions >>> >>> 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range >>> of civil society perspectives on these issues >>> >>> 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively >>> >>> *Explanation of process* >>> The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came >>> together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation >>> in several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons >>> from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the >>> Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the >>> Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non >>> Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for >>> Progressive Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia >>> Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian >>> Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is >>> imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is >>> grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, >>> we are reaching out to other civil society networks to further >>> broaden the inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft >>> set of criteria to assist in this process. >>> Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a >>> work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have >>> been put in place since the group's first nomination. These >>> improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network >>> to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other >>> suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a >>> randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual >>> support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this >>> nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other >>> suggestions for improvement of the joint process. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub | >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 16:02:03 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 22:02:03 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <0DF74228-514A-496C-850A-A12B6CF63B4F@arin.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <0DF74228-514A-496C-850A-A12B6CF63B4F@arin.net> Message-ID: John, Le 8 janv. 2014 à 21:21, John Curran a écrit : > On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> ICANN/IANA are. And therefore everything that comes under ICANN's patronage and funding (1net...) has an obvious link to DoT. That makes quite a grouping. It would be naive not to put the I* under the same umbrella. IETF has a NSA employee at his board. > > Wow. I am actually not even sure how to respond to the above given the layers > of error but obviously must start somewhere - *Thanks for the effort but I am actually not even sure I was trying to detail all the functions, links, etc you kindly describe below. The ICANN/IANA mention is plain enough for all of us to understand what I am talking about. Do not need more than 3 words. > > ICANN does have a NTIA contract to perform "IANA Functions.", which includes > the administration of various registries of parameter values for Internet protocols. You bring precision thanks, but you do not contradict the link I was mentioning. You reinforce it. And by the way the link is still there. > > ICANN also has an MOU with the IAB/IETF (RFC 2860) to carry out certain > tasks, consisting of the administration of various registries of parameter values > for Internet protocols. > > That is actually two mandates; both are specifically applicable to the IANA tasks. Same comment* > > The IANA tasks are a very small part of ICANN, and trying to point to the IANA > contract as a USG "link" to ICANN's greater overall activities make no sense. > Yes, there is a Affirmation of Commitments that has effect on ICANN's activities, > and a GAC that has impact, but the IANA contract itself doesn't provide useful > control (except under the "nuclear" option of its cancelation) Same comment* > > The I* leader coordination meetings have no mandate, patronage, or funding from > the USG. In fact, they've been convened generally by Lynn St. Amour of ISOC, with > each participant picking up travel and related costs. You might as well assert that > both IGF and UN also come under the USG's patronage as a result of ICANN's > contribution... Do you mean that the I-stars have no active part in the asymmetric role of the 'US' over IG? (I am pretty convinced that the I-stars meeting are paid directly by the organizers. Don't need to call in the USG unless your fundings have not been properly organized in agreement with who it may concerns. Also pretty sure that no of you had to pay from his own personal pocket as well. That would be outrageous. Even though some of us do sometime put from their own money in a cause that resonates with the global common good. We must be a little crazy I presume. I would not put in your mouth words that you haven't pronounced or even thought loudly. So I give you back your sentence about "...both IGF and UN ..." > > And finally, none of the above relates to "1net", which may have be consequential > to the Montevideo Statement, but in fact will determine its purpose and methods > once it has a seated coordinating/steering committee. May I suggest that this comment is wrong? And not just a little wrong. The 1net was obviously discussed among the I-stars before the statement was issued. 1net was a pre-statement idea. You do not launch such an idea without an overall idea regarding budget, strategy, project leaders, global timing, advantages, dangers, feasibility... The timing of the announcement can be described as following the meeting. If it was consequential, I doubt that such professionals folks like the I-stars CEOs would have signed for it without any previous strategical agreement and consensus. The critical idea is not about the details of how it will function. The critical idea is its existence, and the 'political' objective. You can leave the logistics, the steering committee to the troopers and their officers. FYG as well. JC Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor The Global Project > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 16:02:05 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 22:02:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <58AB4CB8-8E87-429F-A739-E784C6F69FA6@theglobaljournal.net> Hi McTim, Do you imply that I was explaining to the lists that the Montevideo meeting, and consequential statement was a secret. You must be kidding me. JC PS: Did John twit about the 1net idea during the Montevideo meeting? Sorry if I miss that. That would be interesting. PS 2: I personally do not care about John gastronomic taste and his choice for picking-up guests at his table. Le 8 janv. 2014 à 21:24, McTim a écrit : > Hi John, > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence >> of these meetings has now become a public information - a >> very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized >> before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. >> >> >> Jean-Christophe - >> >> Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past >> have been >> generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see >> fit, e.g. - > > Plus some of us see where you fly, who you eat with eat and drink > with, etc., via social media, so Montevideo was no secret in that > regard. > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 8 16:02:38 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:02:38 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration In-Reply-To: <5E45CAA30C144DDF92DDB0917E9D49BE@Toshiba> References: <5E45CAA30C144DDF92DDB0917E9D49BE@Toshiba> Message-ID: <44A44A92403D4283BC1D375CB051CDA2@Toshiba> OMG... clearly not meant for this list and my sincere apologies to everyone. this was an awful mistake on my part... From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 7:43 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration Thanks everyone for prompt replies – below is a summary of your responses and the candidates still under consideration (although there is nothing to stop us bringing forward other names later on if we want to) HLC Carolina Rossini – 3.5 votes Jovan K – 3 votes Mark Rotenberg – 3 votes Joana Varon 2.5 votes Milton Mueller 2 votes Parminder Singh 2 votes Stephanie Perrin 1 vote Louis Pouzin 1 vote Marilia Maciel 1 vote SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES The brief here is “This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success” Bear in mind also that (my paraphrasing) the aim of the meeting seems to be to develop a set of high level principles for Internet Governance. We dont know yet whether we need 3 or 4 candidates, and probably wont know till Saturday. I think our aim between now and then should be to try and narrow down our field a bit and eliminate some names if possible. But in doing so: Carolina Rossini, Jovan K and Marc Rotenberg got the most support initially – not that we need to be bound by this. They are all impressive candidates. If Marc was in, we probably couldn’t include Milton – 2 US males would not be a good decision politically. Milton also probably fits as an academic – but as he is likely to be running the process to select academic candidates, he may not be able to include himself. Maybe we should seek clarification here? If Carolina was in, we probably wouldn’t include Joana or Marilia None of our first 3 would be considered to be a strong advocate for third world issues. If we thought it was important to include someone with this perspective, the choices would be Louis Pouzin or Parminder Singh. Parminder has indicated he would step down in favour of Louis Pouzin, and we may need to consider that Parminder is a member of the CI (Community Informatics) Nomcom also considering candidates for these very same positions (but with about 6 candidates and very little chance of their nominees being accepted) . That may be perceived as a conflict of interest, or we could ignore it. But some people have already suggested to me informally that Parminder has a conflict of interest here. Also to just note re Stephanie Perrin – if Marc Rotenberg was in we might consider we have privacy issues well covered; but if in our final slate we wanted to include Milton and leave Marc out to not have too many male US citizens Stephanie is an option to cover privacy. So lots of issues.Let’s discuss and see if we can narrow down a little while we await info as to whether we need 3 or 4 names. EC Marilia Maciel 3.5 votes Adam Peake 3 votes Joana Varon 2 votes Nadira Alaraj 1.5 votes Carolina Rossini 1.5 votes Stephanie Perrin 1 vote Norbert Bollow 1 vote Birgitta Jonsdottr .5 Parminder Singh .5 SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES The brief here is “This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives”. I think we need to determine HLC before finalising here. However Marilia and Adam have the strongest support at this stage. We again face the issue here of having a strong advocate for third world issues as a factor in deciding our final 2. Over to you all for comments, suggestions, and attempts to narrow this down further! Ian Peter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 16:41:52 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:41:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: <58AB4CB8-8E87-429F-A739-E784C6F69FA6@theglobaljournal.net> References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <58AB4CB8-8E87-429F-A739-E784C6F69FA6@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: You said: "It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! " I was merely pointing out that many folks could see that folks were all converging on Montevideo, pictures of I* leader were posted publicly. That is all. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Hi McTim, > > Do you imply that I was explaining to the lists that the Montevideo meeting, > and consequential statement was a secret. You must be kidding me. > > > JC > > PS: Did John twit about the 1net idea during the Montevideo meeting? Sorry > if I miss that. That would be interesting. > PS 2: I personally do not care about John gastronomic taste and his choice > for picking-up guests at his table. > > Le 8 janv. 2014 à 21:24, McTim a écrit : > > Hi John, > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM, John Curran wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > > wrote: > > > ... > > > It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence > > of these meetings has now become a public information - a > > very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized > > before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. > > > > Jean-Christophe - > > > Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past > > have been > > generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see > > fit, e.g. - > > > Plus some of us see where you fly, who you eat with eat and drink > with, etc., via social media, so Montevideo was no secret in that > regard. > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jan 8 17:14:23 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:14:23 +1100 Subject: EXPLANATION ON PROCESS Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration In-Reply-To: <44A44A92403D4283BC1D375CB051CDA2@Toshiba> References: <5E45CAA30C144DDF92DDB0917E9D49BE@Toshiba> <44A44A92403D4283BC1D375CB051CDA2@Toshiba> Message-ID: <37972D9D4DA540B585ABC92C3F8E2D0B@Toshiba> Having exposed this by mistake, for which I am very embarrassed, I do need to perhaps explain the context - The selection committee has four voting members – I am not one of them. The process that lead to the numbers below was that each voting member was asked to provide a list of 4-6 names against each committee they would rank most highly from the 30 odd names submitted. One member provided some alternatives against each other, which led to the rather arbitrary allocation by me of a .5 of a vote. The purpose here was purely to get a shortlist – to narrow the range of candidates so that we could consider further in more detail. The number of votes against names here does not in any way indicate a final decision or final preference. Its just a list of names under consideration (and even then not a final one). We all realise there are questions of overall balance involved in determining a final slate but it is helfpul to have some knowledge of other people’s suggestions in doing so. And any comments in the posting are mine and mine alone. They reflect my initial opinions only and not any other organisations or individuals involved. They were provided by me for consideration by others as some first thoughts (I have had some others since) and I take full responsibility. No one else is to be blame or be held responsible for anything said in my comments. Once again apologies for any embarrassment caused. Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 8:02 AM To: Ian Peter ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration OMG... clearly not meant for this list and my sincere apologies to everyone. this was an awful mistake on my part... From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 7:43 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration Thanks everyone for prompt replies – below is a summary of your responses and the candidates still under consideration (although there is nothing to stop us bringing forward other names later on if we want to) HLC Carolina Rossini – 3.5 votes Jovan K – 3 votes Mark Rotenberg – 3 votes Joana Varon 2.5 votes Milton Mueller 2 votes Parminder Singh 2 votes Stephanie Perrin 1 vote Louis Pouzin 1 vote Marilia Maciel 1 vote SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES The brief here is “This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success” Bear in mind also that (my paraphrasing) the aim of the meeting seems to be to develop a set of high level principles for Internet Governance. We dont know yet whether we need 3 or 4 candidates, and probably wont know till Saturday. I think our aim between now and then should be to try and narrow down our field a bit and eliminate some names if possible. But in doing so: Carolina Rossini, Jovan K and Marc Rotenberg got the most support initially – not that we need to be bound by this. They are all impressive candidates. If Marc was in, we probably couldn’t include Milton – 2 US males would not be a good decision politically. Milton also probably fits as an academic – but as he is likely to be running the process to select academic candidates, he may not be able to include himself. Maybe we should seek clarification here? If Carolina was in, we probably wouldn’t include Joana or Marilia None of our first 3 would be considered to be a strong advocate for third world issues. If we thought it was important to include someone with this perspective, the choices would be Louis Pouzin or Parminder Singh. Parminder has indicated he would step down in favour of Louis Pouzin, and we may need to consider that Parminder is a member of the CI (Community Informatics) Nomcom also considering candidates for these very same positions (but with about 6 candidates and very little chance of their nominees being accepted) . That may be perceived as a conflict of interest, or we could ignore it. But some people have already suggested to me informally that Parminder has a conflict of interest here. Also to just note re Stephanie Perrin – if Marc Rotenberg was in we might consider we have privacy issues well covered; but if in our final slate we wanted to include Milton and leave Marc out to not have too many male US citizens Stephanie is an option to cover privacy. So lots of issues.Let’s discuss and see if we can narrow down a little while we await info as to whether we need 3 or 4 names. EC Marilia Maciel 3.5 votes Adam Peake 3 votes Joana Varon 2 votes Nadira Alaraj 1.5 votes Carolina Rossini 1.5 votes Stephanie Perrin 1 vote Norbert Bollow 1 vote Birgitta Jonsdottr .5 Parminder Singh .5 SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES The brief here is “This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives”. I think we need to determine HLC before finalising here. However Marilia and Adam have the strongest support at this stage. We again face the issue here of having a strong advocate for third world issues as a factor in deciding our final 2. Over to you all for comments, suggestions, and attempts to narrow this down further! Ian Peter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Jan 8 17:19:22 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 23:19:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <58AB4CB8-8E87-429F-A739-E784C6F69FA6@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: I wrote meetings, not specifically the Montevideo meeting. Le 8 janv. 2014 à 22:41, McTim a écrit : > You said: > > "It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the > existence of these meetings has now become a public information - a > very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! " > > I was merely pointing out that many folks could see that folks were > all converging on Montevideo, pictures of I* leader were posted > publicly. > > That is all. > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global > Journal wrote: >> Hi McTim, >> >> Do you imply that I was explaining to the lists that the Montevideo meeting, >> and consequential statement was a secret. You must be kidding me. >> >> >> JC >> >> PS: Did John twit about the 1net idea during the Montevideo meeting? Sorry >> if I miss that. That would be interesting. >> PS 2: I personally do not care about John gastronomic taste and his choice >> for picking-up guests at his table. >> >> Le 8 janv. 2014 à 21:24, McTim a écrit : >> >> Hi John, >> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:08 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal >> >> wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >> >> It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence >> >> of these meetings has now become a public information - a >> >> very-behind-close-doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized >> >> before the NSA scandal pressures the I-stars. >> >> >> >> Jean-Christophe - >> >> >> Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of the past >> >> have been >> >> generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as they see >> >> fit, e.g. - >> >> >> Plus some of us see where you fly, who you eat with eat and drink >> with, etc., via social media, so Montevideo was no secret in that >> regard. >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 17:27:42 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 17:27:42 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration In-Reply-To: <44A44A92403D4283BC1D375CB051CDA2@Toshiba> References: <5E45CAA30C144DDF92DDB0917E9D49BE@Toshiba> <44A44A92403D4283BC1D375CB051CDA2@Toshiba> Message-ID: Btw... I am Brazilian and even leaving in US, I have TONS of work in developing world, my day by day work is focused on developing work, and just moved to the US because my husband is american. I do TONS of pro bono work on A2K, education, and ICTs in Brazil and other Latin American and South Asia countries. So it is NOT true I would not represent a developing country view. I am very honored by the votes and the trust. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 8, 2014, at 4:02 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > OMG... clearly not meant for this list and my sincere apologies to everyone. > > this was an awful mistake on my part... > > > > From: Ian Peter > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 7:43 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration > > Thanks everyone for prompt replies – below is a summary of your responses and the candidates still under consideration (although there is nothing to stop us bringing forward other names later on if we want to) > > HLC > > Carolina Rossini – 3.5 votes > Jovan K – 3 votes > Mark Rotenberg – 3 votes > Joana Varon 2.5 votes > Milton Mueller 2 votes > Parminder Singh 2 votes > Stephanie Perrin 1 vote > Louis Pouzin 1 vote > Marilia Maciel 1 vote > > SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES > > The brief here is “This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success” > > Bear in mind also that (my paraphrasing) the aim of the meeting seems to be to develop a set of high level principles for Internet Governance. > > We dont know yet whether we need 3 or 4 candidates, and probably wont know till Saturday. I think our aim between now and then should be to try and narrow down our field a bit and eliminate some names if possible. But in doing so: > > Carolina Rossini, Jovan K and Marc Rotenberg got the most support initially – not that we need to be bound by this. They are all impressive candidates. > > If Marc was in, we probably couldn’t include Milton – 2 US males would not be a good decision politically. Milton also probably fits as an academic – but as he is likely to be running the process to select academic candidates, he may not be able to include himself. Maybe we should seek clarification here? > > If Carolina was in, we probably wouldn’t include Joana or Marilia > > None of our first 3 would be considered to be a strong advocate for third world issues. If we thought it was important to include someone with this perspective, the choices would be Louis Pouzin or Parminder Singh. Parminder has indicated he would step down in favour of Louis Pouzin, and we may need to consider that Parminder is a member of the CI (Community Informatics) Nomcom also considering candidates for these very same positions (but with about 6 candidates and very little chance of their nominees being accepted) . That may be perceived as a conflict of interest, or we could ignore it. But some people have already suggested to me informally that Parminder has a conflict of interest here. > > Also to just note re Stephanie Perrin – if Marc Rotenberg was in we might consider we have privacy issues well covered; but if in our final slate we wanted to include Milton and leave Marc out to not have too many male US citizens Stephanie is an option to cover privacy. > > So lots of issues.Let’s discuss and see if we can narrow down a little while we await info as to whether we need 3 or 4 names. > > > EC > Marilia Maciel 3.5 votes > Adam Peake 3 votes > Joana Varon 2 votes > Nadira Alaraj 1.5 votes > Carolina Rossini 1.5 votes > Stephanie Perrin 1 vote > Norbert Bollow 1 vote > Birgitta Jonsdottr .5 > Parminder Singh .5 > > SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES > > The brief here is “This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives”. > > I think we need to determine HLC before finalising here. However Marilia and Adam have the strongest support at this stage. We again face the issue here of having a strong advocate for third world issues as a factor in deciding our final 2. > > Over to you all for comments, suggestions, and attempts to narrow this down further! > > Ian Peter > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jan 8 17:39:22 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 22:39:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] [discuss] [bestbits] Fwd: Heads up on Brazil meeting preparation In-Reply-To: References: <52CCEC64.6020500@itforchange.net> <52CD4406.90804@itforchange.net> <351B7B6C-19F9-4908-871F-20A92E286FB1@theglobaljournal.net> <1995F5B7-C5DF-43F6-993B-D19A1CBFC849@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: Le 8 janv. 2014 à 20:45, John Curran a écrit : On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > wrote: My report is based upon Lynn Saint Amour statements. It does not come out of personal considerations. The out of the public view is a reality you cannot deny. You claimed "the existence of these meetings has now become a public information"... If you mean that that they now are more visible, then we're in agreement (and quite expected given the Montevideo Statement) We agree on this However, implying that there was no public information available previously and that the very existence of these meetings was unavailable to the public is a specious claim. What Lynn Saint Amour said is that these meetings were not publicized on purpose. A rather odd strategy of communication in a world that claims transparency against all behind-the-doors meetings by others. The point to know if there was a public information available or not is not really the point. The point is the 'intention'. The will behind a situation. This is what is so important in LSA statement. On the contrary, implying that there was a public information available, and that the very existence of these meetings was known from the public is a specious disclaim. We agree that there was public information about the meetings, but not a high-level of public awareness of these meetings before the Montevideo Statement. As CEO of ARIN, I have lots of meetings with other organizations; this is generally to coordinate aspects of various activities that have mutual involvement. The fact that I meet with leaders from ICANN, or ISOC, or the IAB is quite routine, as there is quite a bit of routine inter-organizational coordination required in maintenance of the IANA registries. Not anything close to a "governing board", just the leaders of the existing organizations getting together to coordinate actions between their organizations (and their certainly with no imprimatur of any country) Again, such regular meetings can be named whatever one wishes to, the coordination done during these meetings is not about the size of the fonts on your respective websites. When discussing which strategy is to defined in reaction to the WCIT or NSA trust IG crisis (part of the asymmetric situation we are all dealing with), and then coming up with a publicized or not publicized idea such as the 1net, is exactly what a governing body is about: think and make decision in order to act upon events and people. In the open or in the hidden. At this stage we have no information if other 'ideas' had emerged from these meetings. Maybe yes, maybe no. You keep missing the point that the I* meetings between the various leaders are a _coordination meeting_; there is no applicable governance over the involved organizations. Each of the Internet organizations have their own decision making processes and community of interest. For example, in the case of ARIN, the thinking about what ARIN's position in such matters was done long before the I* meeting (as a result of discussions with ARIN community), and is reflected on our web site and in our past statements on these matters. As the discussion and Montevideo Statement had a high-level of overlap with ARIN's existing positions, I had the ARIN Board confirm our agreement with the position and then signed the statement. The meetings can't "make a decision" on behalf of anybody, at best they can find existing commonality of views and positions among the parties. By the way, I find the I-stars naming really cool. I prefer it to the G20 naming. I hope you had a good drink over this one. The Internet Stars!! No offense John. I believe it emerged as short-hand for referencing a set of organizations that predominantly begin with the letter "I" [ISOC, ICANN, IAB, IANA, etc.], with "*" being used in typical pattern matching context. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkilic at citizen.org Wed Jan 8 17:47:36 2014 From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:47:36 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration In-Reply-To: References: <5E45CAA30C144DDF92DDB0917E9D49BE@Toshiba> <44A44A92403D4283BC1D375CB051CDA2@Toshiba> Message-ID: <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B9F500449@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> I second that. Carol is a strong advocate for developing countries, particularly Latin America. She is a proud Brazilian when it comes to work. From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:28 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: Ian Peter; Subject: Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration Btw... I am Brazilian and even leaving in US, I have TONS of work in developing world, my day by day work is focused on developing work, and just moved to the US because my husband is american. I do TONS of pro bono work on A2K, education, and ICTs in Brazil and other Latin American and South Asia countries. So it is NOT true I would not represent a developing country view. I am very honored by the votes and the trust. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 8, 2014, at 4:02 PM, "Ian Peter" > wrote: OMG... clearly not meant for this list and my sincere apologies to everyone. this was an awful mistake on my part... From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 7:43 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration Thanks everyone for prompt replies – below is a summary of your responses and the candidates still under consideration (although there is nothing to stop us bringing forward other names later on if we want to) HLC Carolina Rossini – 3.5 votes Jovan K – 3 votes Mark Rotenberg – 3 votes Joana Varon 2.5 votes Milton Mueller 2 votes Parminder Singh 2 votes Stephanie Perrin 1 vote Louis Pouzin 1 vote Marilia Maciel 1 vote SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES The brief here is “This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success” Bear in mind also that (my paraphrasing) the aim of the meeting seems to be to develop a set of high level principles for Internet Governance. We dont know yet whether we need 3 or 4 candidates, and probably wont know till Saturday. I think our aim between now and then should be to try and narrow down our field a bit and eliminate some names if possible. But in doing so: Carolina Rossini, Jovan K and Marc Rotenberg got the most support initially – not that we need to be bound by this. They are all impressive candidates. If Marc was in, we probably couldn’t include Milton – 2 US males would not be a good decision politically. Milton also probably fits as an academic – but as he is likely to be running the process to select academic candidates, he may not be able to include himself. Maybe we should seek clarification here? If Carolina was in, we probably wouldn’t include Joana or Marilia None of our first 3 would be considered to be a strong advocate for third world issues. If we thought it was important to include someone with this perspective, the choices would be Louis Pouzin or Parminder Singh. Parminder has indicated he would step down in favour of Louis Pouzin, and we may need to consider that Parminder is a member of the CI (Community Informatics) Nomcom also considering candidates for these very same positions (but with about 6 candidates and very little chance of their nominees being accepted) . That may be perceived as a conflict of interest, or we could ignore it. But some people have already suggested to me informally that Parminder has a conflict of interest here. Also to just note re Stephanie Perrin – if Marc Rotenberg was in we might consider we have privacy issues well covered; but if in our final slate we wanted to include Milton and leave Marc out to not have too many male US citizens Stephanie is an option to cover privacy. So lots of issues.Let’s discuss and see if we can narrow down a little while we await info as to whether we need 3 or 4 names. EC Marilia Maciel 3.5 votes Adam Peake 3 votes Joana Varon 2 votes Nadira Alaraj 1.5 votes Carolina Rossini 1.5 votes Stephanie Perrin 1 vote Norbert Bollow 1 vote Birgitta Jonsdottr .5 Parminder Singh .5 SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES The brief here is “This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives”. I think we need to determine HLC before finalising here. However Marilia and Adam have the strongest support at this stage. We again face the issue here of having a strong advocate for third world issues as a factor in deciding our final 2. Over to you all for comments, suggestions, and attempts to narrow this down further! Ian Peter ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jan 8 18:31:42 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 18:31:42 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration In-Reply-To: <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B9F500449@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> References: <5E45CAA30C144DDF92DDB0917E9D49BE@Toshiba> <44A44A92403D4283BC1D375CB051CDA2@Toshiba> <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0B9F500449@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> Message-ID: (Apart of the personal side, and as I mentioned to Parminder, I do not take things personal - so that was an exception Ian, because it was personal :-) ) What disturbs me the most is that this email shows that there are groups withing groups. And this groups do not seem to be working groups, but groups that are ok with "ruptures at any point" (and I prefer to keep to myself what this may mean). And this worries me incredibly. It creates lots of trouble regarding the process we all agreed to in a certain moment and it also exposes all of us as CS. I am part of many other movements (open government, open data for science, free culture, open education, open access for publications, etc) and the cooperation and trust is much more present, which makes all the work, our strategies and positions move better. Plus, we are probably happier and more positive. I feel that if we do not have a true commitment with the group and also if we are not willing to open spaces for new comers, our movement may have a very dark end. I have been witnessing over the list - which actually make me sad, and I am sure overburdens lots of people here - the personal attacks, and the difficult we seem to have in "letting go" or "in trusting". I worked with cooperation theory, and I think if we were all part of a prisoners' dilemma game, we would all be dead by now due to our long long prison sentences. ;-) I preferred to be quiet when the attacks start, but again, I think it is just sad and a distraction from the real work. I have actually been thinking of ways to deal with that...such as having a working wiki where the real content driven work can happen and we list the content and strategy topics being discussed (which is also a better way to document work and find consensus) while folks keep debating interesting things on the list (or other issues...). The only other similar community I have known (and also participated in) is the Wikipedia. You have to have a real rough skin over there...hehehe. But they do get things done by using a knowledge management platform - a wiki. Anyway....I will take care of other work now, of my beautiful 3 year-old and have a glass of wine (which I humbly recommend to all), hoping we all find ways of trusting ourselves as a group and our processes better. Hugs to all, (yes, I am Brazilian and thus a big hugger) :-) Carol On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote: > I second that. Carol is a strong advocate for developing countries, > particularly Latin America. > > She is a proud Brazilian when it comes to work. > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:28 PM > *To:* Ian Peter > *Cc:* Ian Peter; > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration > > > > Btw... I am Brazilian and even leaving in US, I have TONS of work in > developing world, my day by day work is focused on developing work, and > just moved to the US because my husband is american. I do TONS of pro bono > work on A2K, education, and ICTs in Brazil and other Latin American and > South Asia countries. So it is NOT true I would not represent a developing > country view. > > I am very honored by the votes and the trust. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 4:02 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > OMG... clearly not meant for this list and my sincere apologies to > everyone. > > > > this was an awful mistake on my part... > > > > > > > > *From:* Ian Peter > > *Sent:* Thursday, January 09, 2014 7:43 AM > > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* [bestbits] Shortlists for Brazil for further consideration > > > > Thanks everyone for prompt replies – below is a summary of your responses > and the candidates still under consideration (although there is nothing to > stop us bringing forward other names later on if we want to) > > > > HLC > > > > Carolina Rossini – 3.5 votes > > Jovan K – 3 votes > > Mark Rotenberg – 3 votes > > Joana Varon 2.5 votes > > Milton Mueller 2 votes > > Parminder Singh 2 votes > > Stephanie Perrin 1 vote > > Louis Pouzin 1 vote > > Marilia Maciel 1 vote > > > > SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES > > > > The brief here is “This committee will set the high ­level political tone > and objectives of the > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > success” > > > > Bear in mind also that (my paraphrasing) the aim of the meeting seems to > be to develop a set of high level principles for Internet Governance. > > > > We dont know yet whether we need 3 or 4 candidates, and probably wont know > till Saturday. I think our aim between now and then should be to try and > narrow down our field a bit and eliminate some names if possible. But in > doing so: > > > > Carolina Rossini, Jovan K and Marc Rotenberg got the most support > initially – not that we need to be bound by this. They are all impressive > candidates. > > > > If Marc was in, we probably couldn’t include Milton – 2 US males would not > be a good decision politically. Milton also probably fits as an academic – > but as he is likely to be running the process to select academic > candidates, he may not be able to include himself. Maybe we should seek > clarification here? > > > > If Carolina was in, we probably wouldn’t include Joana or Marilia > > > > None of our first 3 would be considered to be a strong advocate for third > world issues. If we thought it was important to include someone with this > perspective, the choices would be Louis Pouzin or Parminder Singh. > Parminder has indicated he would step down in favour of Louis Pouzin, and > we may need to consider that Parminder is a member of the CI (Community > Informatics) Nomcom also considering candidates for these very same > positions (but with about 6 candidates and very little chance of their > nominees being accepted) . That may be perceived as a conflict of interest, > or we could ignore it. But some people have already suggested to me > informally that Parminder has a conflict of interest here. > > > > Also to just note re Stephanie Perrin – if Marc Rotenberg was in we might > consider we have privacy issues well covered; but if in our final slate we > wanted to include Milton and leave Marc out to not have too many male US > citizens Stephanie is an option to cover privacy. > > > > So lots of issues.Let’s discuss and see if we can narrow down a little > while we await info as to whether we need 3 or 4 names. > > > > > > EC > > Marilia Maciel 3.5 votes > > Adam Peake 3 votes > > Joana Varon 2 votes > > Nadira Alaraj 1.5 votes > > Carolina Rossini 1.5 votes > > Stephanie Perrin 1 vote > > Norbert Bollow 1 vote > > Birgitta Jonsdottr .5 > > Parminder Singh .5 > > > > SOME COMMENTS AND ISSUES > > > > The brief here is “This committee owns the full responsibility of > organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, > managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of > proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and > process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post > conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives”. > > > > I think we need to determine HLC before finalising here. However Marilia > and Adam have the strongest support at this stage. We again face the issue > here of having a strong advocate for third world issues as a factor in > deciding our final 2. > > > > Over to you all for comments, suggestions, and attempts to narrow this > down further! > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: