From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Mar 10 12:56:01 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:56:01 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>,<C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <4bef49dbc3aa4d1eb8bd93f8f4c453ab@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

I agree with Adam and Carlos there is a confounding of the issue in terms of Guru asking for the proprietary algorithm to be public. Google tweaks that almost daily it is my understanding, so even if yesterday's agorithm was public, it wouldn't do much good - today. It would make it much harder for Google to do business, and would lead to the algorithm-gaming behavior of other firms that Adam predicts.

On the other hand, regulatory review of possible bias/self-dealing in search results and their impact on competition in a market is fair game, even if the US FTC said 'play on' in its own review.

In that sense, the India competition policy review of Google is a relatively routine analysis of a firm in dominant positions in multiple markets.

For example, re the ongoing EU inquiries on Google's practices, and possible remedies, see:
http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/google-remains-eu-scrutiny-news-533755 

Lee
________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:49 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु
Cc: Best Bits
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....

Hi Guru,

On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret.


Are you sure about this?  If the algorithm's public then it will be gamed.  Logical extension of this is searches will no return accurate results, no longer be trusted, and a very useful resource will be pretty much be made useless.  Is this your intention?

Best,

Adam


> The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>
> regards,
> Guru
>
> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>
>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.
>
> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
>
> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.”
>
> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>
> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
>
> source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 14:37:29 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:07:29 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net>
References: <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <531E0669.1070401@ITforChange.net>


Grande CA,

With due respect, the argument that 'you need not use Google search' is 
quite impractical/rhetorical. Search is essential to meaning making and 
in today's digital society, let us not delude ourselves that we can do 
without Google search. Google search is a monopoly  (conventional 
meaning - dominant market share) for very good reasons, of which its 
algorithms perceived superiority is an important one, but also its HUGE 
economic power invested in numerous data centres that help crawl/store 
and crunch the indexed information fast enough to make the engine 
formidable.

You find my argument difficult to accept,  because you have perhaps 
already imagined that the only way search can work is in its current 
form -where it is offered in a secretive manner by a for profit entity 
-  where you_can_not_be_sure that the commercial interests of the search 
engine would affect your actual agency in searching. Sorry, did I said 
you cannot be sure,   I should have said - YOU_CAN_BE_SURE that google's 
commercial interests would make it fiddle with the search algorithms in 
ways that would maximise its profit (Read Eli Pariser on how Google 
search engine is manipulating search for maximising its profits ...and 
in this process could be giving the world a global lobotomy, article 
attached! So whose to care? so long as we all click on the EULAs, all is 
well?)

Whether these manipulations by Google, would be within current legal 
limits or could cross these limits is what for instance Indian CCI is 
investigating. We have NO_IDEA.

_Another world is possible_
We could imagine search otherwise as well ... as a huge public digital 
library, where neither information nor its search need to be 
proprietary. In my view, I CANNOT see any other way to prevent 
manipulation of algorithms by the vendor for maximising their 
profits.Whether this manipulation is legal or not can only be detected 
by knowing the algorithm :-) ,

The  "JustNetCoalition's" principles and roadmap can be something we can 
take forward for building a just and equitable net. See principle 8 of 
the JNC principles on this issue (also attached) and share your thoughts...

warm regards,
Guru

On 03/10/2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
> private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
> paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.
>
> Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
> for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
> of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
> risk and will.
>
> Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
> the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
> can demand consumer and other rights.
>
> I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
> can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
> a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
> if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
>
> IMHO
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
>> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
>> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
>> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
>> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
>> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
>> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
>> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>
>>   Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
>> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
>> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
>> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
>> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
>> the country.
>>
>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
>> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
>> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
>> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
>> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
>> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
>> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
>> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
>> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
>> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
>> nearly $5 billion.
>>
>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
>> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
>> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
>> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
>> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
>> users and good for competition.”
>>
>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
>> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
>> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
>> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
>> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
>> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>>
>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
>> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
>> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
>> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
>> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>>
>> source -
>> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140311/4d7ab6c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4. The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 227104 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140311/4d7ab6c7/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Just_Net_Coalition_Principles_Brazil_sub.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 75403 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140311/4d7ab6c7/attachment-0001.pdf>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 14:40:42 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:10:42 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0254.7050100@ITforChange.net>
References: <531E0254.7050100@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <531E072A.40300@ITforChange.net>


On 03/10/2014 09:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Hi Guru,
 >
 > On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
 >> Dear all,
 >>
 >> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has
 >> an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to
 >> agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the
 >> worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public
 >> knowledge, not a commercial secret.

> Are you sure about this?  If  the algorithm's public then it will be
 > gamed.  Logical extension of this is searches will no return accurate
 > results, no longer be trusted, and a very useful resource will be
 > pretty much be made useless.  Is this your intention?

Good point, Adam.

If the algorithm is public, then it has a high probability of being
gamed. But is it not already the case that people/entities try to game
the search, based on their rough understanding of how search is working?
So I would argue that we would need to research ways by which gaming
could be identified and that knowledge should also be available and used
as a part of the search processes. I understand this is pretty much a
cat and mouse game between attempts at gaming and attempt at unearthing
gaming... but such games are already common in the development of virus
and anti-virus algorithms/ spam and anti-spam algorithms  ....

So I would argue that more transparency, not less on both counts.

Would you agree that google's search algorithm being proprietary, we
have NO idea if google is using it to capture information every time we
invoke it, and using it for its commercial (legal as well as illegal)
purposes (and also for purposes beyond its immediate commercial goals,
such as the political goals of the US Government, in whose jurisdiction,
it falls, as Snowden revealed). While this possibility of manipulation
is true for any proprietary software, the search algorithm is perhaps
the worlds-most_popular_on-line_proprietary_algorithm which makes the
danger of being manipulated for the political-economic gains of certain
entities far far higher... something that should scare everyone else.

Any advocates working on privacy / surveillance issues should strongly
support my proposal to have Google make and keep its algorithms public.
And of course so should anyone working towards open ICTD (open source,
open resources) paradigms.... And of course anyone who believes in the
WSIS 2003 Declaration of Principles, of .. "... our common desire and
commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented
Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and
share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and
peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable
development and improving their quality of life..." this is not possible
if we are suffering from global lobotomy (see Eli Pariser article in the
response to CA).

regards,
Guru
> Best,
 >
 > Adam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140311/6e20acfc/attachment.htm>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 14:42:52 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:12:52 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0613.9040506@ITforChange.net>
References: <531E0613.9040506@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <531E07AC.90808@ITforChange.net>

On 03/10/2014 10:26 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> I agree with Adam and Carlos there is a confounding of the issue in terms of Guru asking for the proprietary algorithm to be public. Google tweaks that almost daily it is my understanding, so even if yesterday's agorithm was public, it wouldn't do much good - today.
Lee
So is there any technological impossibility in sharing this daily/ as 
and when a change is done? Don't see a point here.
>   It would make it much harder for Google to do business,

I know, Google is finding it so hard to do business today, we don't want 
to make it any harder, do we ;-) .... certainly not with any regulation 
that would address critical issues I mentioned in my initial mail on 
this thread!

>   and would lead to the algorithm-gaming behavior of other firms that Adam predicts.
>
> On the other hand, regulatory review of possible bias/self-dealing in search results and their impact on competition in a market is fair game, even if the US FTC said 'play on' in its own review.
>
> In that sense, the India competition policy review of Google is a relatively routine analysis of a firm in dominant positions in multiple markets.

not really Lee .... *This can be tectonic .*... The policy review should 
need the regulator to review the search algorithm, whose secret nature 
is a big part of Google's power. See, this investigation is not about 
some simple manipulation of markets by some explicit/physical methods as 
may usually be the case. We are discussing the search algorithm which is 
ordering the world's knowledge / information for each of us.  "Code is 
law",  Lessig said; this review process by CCI  logically should wrench 
the control of the search algorithm from a private entity enforcing 
'law' for its own profit maximisation (and God/Snowden know for what 
else), to a public good process/approach.

Technically, CCI should require Google to share its algorithm with it or 
a relevant/competent authority that can assure us that Google is not 
illegally manipulating the page views  ...*and also require Google to 
prior clear any change in algorithm with such an authority* ... while I 
admit that this is  unlikely to happen, however  I see my position as 
logical...

Guru

> For example, re the ongoing EU inquiries on Google's practices, and possible remedies, see:
> http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/google-remains-eu-scrutiny-news-533755  
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net  <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>  on behalf of Adam Peake<ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:49 AM
> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु
> Cc: Best Bits
> Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
>
> Hi Guru,
>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret.
> Are you sure about this?  If the algorithm's public then it will be gamed.  Logical extension of this is searches will no return accurate results, no longer be trusted, and a very useful resource will be pretty much be made useless.  Is this your intention?
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>> The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>
>>   Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.
>>
>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
>>
>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.”
>>
>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>>
>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
>>
>> source -http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140311/5eb5d53e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 15:03:04 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:33:04 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0254.7050100@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp> <531E0254.7050100@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <531E0C68.6080102@ITforChange.net>

On 03/10/2014 11:50 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 09:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
> Would you agree that google's search algorithm being proprietary, we 
> have NO idea if google is using it to capture information every time 
> we invoke it, and using it for its commercial (legal as well as 
> illegal) purposes (and also for purposes beyond its immediate 
> commercial goals, such as the political goals of the US Government, in 
> whose jurisdiction, it falls, as Snowden revealed). While this 
> possibility of manipulation is true for any proprietary software, the 
> search algorithm is perhaps the 
> worlds-most_popular_on-line_proprietary_algorithm which makes the 
> danger of being manipulated for the political-economic gains of 
> certain entities far far higher... something that should scare 
> everyone else.
>

the fear is not just a theoretical one.....
see 
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/19/google-pay-17-million-apple-tracking 
where Google was found guilty of using its search for illegal activities,
The article says that the "huge fine of $17m " would take Google 
slightly more than three hours to generate in revenue on an average 
day..... (Lee, we are very tough on Google aren't we :-) )

Guru
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140311/8154e848/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Mon Mar 10 15:08:15 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:08:15 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0669.1070401@ITforChange.net>
References: <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net> <531E0669.1070401@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <531E0D9F.6090405@acm.org>



On 10-Mar-14 14:37, Guru गुरु wrote:
> 'you need not use Google search' is quite impractical/rhetorical


I use mostly duckduckgoo, sometimes bing. and sometimes google to.  i 
have set my browsers, and i use various as can anyone, to choose 
duckduckgo as my primary search.

doesn't seem rhetorical, it is easily done.

also seems practical to me.  and i don't think there is anything 
privileged or especially knowledgeable/geeky about doing what i do.  i 
learned about duckduckgo orginally from a non geek when i was bemoaning 
the loss of scroogle - but they did piggyback on google.

avri

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 15:13:01 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:43:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0D9F.6090405@acm.org>
References: <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net> <531E0669.1070401@ITforChange.net> <531E0D9F.6090405@acm.org>
Message-ID: <531E0EBD.5010005@ITforChange.net>

On 03/11/2014 12:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
> On 10-Mar-14 14:37, Guru गुरु wrote:
>> 'you need not use Google search' is quite impractical/rhetorical
>
>
> I use mostly duckduckgoo,

Avri

I am eager to know why do you mostly use duckduckgoo

Guru


> sometimes bing. and sometimes google to.  i have set my browsers, and 
> i use various as can anyone, to choose duckduckgo as my primary search.
>
> doesn't seem rhetorical, it is easily done.
>
> also seems practical to me.  and i don't think there is anything 
> privileged or especially knowledgeable/geeky about doing what i do.  i 
> learned about duckduckgo orginally from a non geek when i was 
> bemoaning the loss of scroogle - but they did piggyback on google.
>
> avri


From pranesh at cis-india.org  Mon Mar 10 15:16:39 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:16:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <531E0F97.4000804@cis-india.org>

parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2014-03-08 2:03:38]:
> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
> education policy making, and so on...

Yes, I would support pharmaceutical companies actually being part of the 
health policy drafting process, just as I support publishers — the very 
publishers I've been fighting against in the parallel importation battle 
going on in India right now — having a role in policymaking around 
copyright.  It would be undemocratic, to say the least, to not have them 
at the table.

(That is not to say that I believe Wolfgang is right in the 
problem-solving abilities of multi-stakeholder decision-making processes 
by relying on IETF as the example.)

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140310/0f5b68f7/attachment.sig>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Mon Mar 10 15:21:41 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:21:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <173001cf3ae5$cb6724d0$62356e70$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <144a22ab600.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <173001cf3ae5$cb6724d0$62356e70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <531E10C5.6040207@cis-india.org>

Dear Michael,
I would equally like a clear statement from you as to how transnational 
"democracy" should work for Internet-related policy making.  How would 
these "democratic" decisions be enforced?

And, if Amazon is to pay taxes, they should not get a voice in the tax 
debate?  Should only those who do not pay taxes have a voice in the tax 
debate?  How is that democratic?

Regards,
Pranesh

michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> [2014-03-08 10:48:03]:
> Maybe I'm wrong and I would be delighted to see one of the MSists actually
> come out with a clear articulation of what they mean by MSism or a MS
> process but my understanding is that MSism is where the various
> "stakeholders" i.e. the private sector among others have a direct role in
> deciding (i.e. have direct inputs into consensus outputs) concerning issues
> of public policy significance arising out of Internet developments.
>
> What that means to me is that for example, Amazon gets to have a direct
> input into establishing global taxation policy related to the Internet,
> Google as a "stakeholder" is directly involved in establishing global policy
> concerning Intellectual Property Rights, Facebook as a matter of stakeholder
> "rights" helps determine global standards and regulation concerning privacy
> and so on and so on. Perhaps one of the guru's of MSism--Wolfgang, Bertrand,
> Jeanette--might explain exactly where I've misunderstood.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 6:49 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; bestbits; michael
> gurstein
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I thought she just got saying that industry has a stake and should have an
> opportunity to comment on legislation or regulations that are targeted at
> it.
>
> I am not sure how you drew that extra meaning from her words.
>
>
>
> On 8 March 2014 7:46:55 PM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically
>> dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr..
>> "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests,
>> not only legal but compulsory?
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette
>> Hofmann
>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
>> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>> multistakeholder
>> policy making, even at national levels, would you support pharma
>> companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making - actually making -
>> health and drug policies, and big publishers in education policy making,
> and so on...
>>
>>
>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this
>> for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not
>> done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes,
>> particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation.
>> Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process
>> and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what
> has been going on in secret.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the
> 'difference'?
>>>
>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet
>>> may be
>> discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to control,
>> for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis for
>> multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>> embracing
>> here.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and public
> administration.
>>>>
>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>> subject
>> to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>> representatives .
>>>>
>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>> manner
>> whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international
>> treaties, and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements,
>> the manner of their national application remain in a somewhat complex
>> interplay with national political systems. But this system of global
>> public policies still
>> works.)
>>>>
>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>
>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>> definitions
>> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big
>> business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is
>> established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover
>> all areas of our social and political existence. This is what is happening
> now.
>>>>
>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big
>> business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the
> global level.
>> Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level.
>> Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this
>> models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>
>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into
>>>> a
>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite
>>>>> formal,
>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>> public
>> policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go
>> beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without
>> public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>
>>>>>  From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>> models
>> to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where
>> it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should
>> also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually
>> done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil
>>>>>> society
>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov
>> participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as
>> gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>> making,
>> which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying
> statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>> Joy
>> - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on
>> BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out
> withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter
>>>>>>> the
>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>      the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>      society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>      should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>      internet governance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>> processes
>> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been
>> on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>> documents
>> and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet
>> governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial,
>> including human rights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing
>>>>>>> the
>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other
>>>>>>> when
>> doing so; and
>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>> therefore
>> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though
>> they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public
>>>>>>> policy
>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing
>>>>>>> or
>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>> which
>> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation
>> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter
>>>>>>>> and the
>> use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic,
>>>>>>>> with the
>> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
>> international organisations. No single government should have a
>> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>> dictionary
>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>> defines
>> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments,
>> the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No
>> single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to
>> international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>> term
>> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning
>> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we
>> certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no
>> one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement
>> of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect
>> to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free
>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the
>> decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed
>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from what
>> is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as
>> gov
>> reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for
>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it
>> was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable
>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the
>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder
> roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov
>> actors....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>> this
>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder
>> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>> multilateral
>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be
>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does
>> not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle
> inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE
>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term either
>> does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary
>> fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic'
>>>>>>>>> in
>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency,
>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder
>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did
>>>>>>>>> the
>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to
>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group....
>> Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from
> this doc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy
>>>>>>>>> not to
>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end
>> of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post
>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a
>> pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan
>> Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>> equitable
>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>> see
>> how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime
>> objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get into
>> the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>> got
>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important
>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest
>> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt
> it...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public
>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy
>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect
>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that
>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under
>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate
>> basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical
>> provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to
>> do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and
>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and
>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the
>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to
>> the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression,
>> access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a
> knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>> policy
>> advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org
>> <http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director,
>>>>>>>> association
>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director,
>>>>> association
>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140310/1e1cfc32/attachment.sig>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 15:23:33 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:53:33 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <ea3222eb2e3343d8bc2a8d9d3fbac0ac@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>,<C3FF154E-F95B-4B81-9A0B-4184936856F2@glocom.ac.jp> <4bef49dbc3aa4d1eb8bd93f8f4c453ab@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>,<531E0613.9040506@ITforChange.net> <ea3222eb2e3343d8bc2a8d9d3fbac0ac@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <531E1135.6050703@ITforChange.net>

Guru,
>
> You are arguing that the Google search algorithm is a public good and 
> must be regulated as  such.
>
> I am saying Google is just another - firm in a dominant position whose 
> secret sauce is a closely guarded trade secret. Unlike Coke's secret 
> formula, Google's changes often; but it is still a trade secret if 
> that's the way the business operates.
>
Lee

No comparison between coke's formula and google's search algorithm
Code is law and architecture is policy...
Please read 
http://www.stanford.edu/class/msande91si/www-spr04/readings/week3/Lessig-pcforum.pdf 
or http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html

Guru
> So yes my view is that in spite of all appearances of present 
> invincibility, odds are Google is just another firm with dominant 
> products in markets, at a particular point in time.
>
> Which usual government regulatory proceedings can handle without 
> resorting to a global regulatory takings process whose likelihood of 
> success is somewhere around highly unlikely; is all I am saying. It 
> would be a good topic for IGF.
>
> The concept of 'search neutrality' never got much traction, but it is 
> definitely legitimate for the Indian, and European, and US regulators 
> to consider the market impact of Google search results and address 
> them if there is evidence of abuse of a dominant position.
>
> Which, cough cough, well let's wait til the dust/smoke settles, but 
> certainly smells like Google has grown up to the point it may safely 
> be forecast that they will be operating under various competition 
> policy regulatory reviews for years to come.
>
> Congrats? ; )
>
> Lee
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140311/6d0294d8/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Sat Mar  1 22:13:09 2014
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 22:13:09 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Human Rights Council Briefing Note: 25th Session
Message-ID: <CALU7RQbx2NAdUeXtk_AZBSgtd3HoDKY9jYY=12+cT3z1x9v-5w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all (apologies for cross posting),

The 25th session of the Human Rights Council opens on Monday, 3 March.
Please find below and attached a briefing
note<https://www.accessnow.org/page/-/docs/HRC25_BriefingNote_20130228.pdf>prepared
by Joy Liddicoat, Shawna Finnegan, and myself on internet rights
issues that will be on this session's agenda.

Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to write me, Joy, or
Shawna (copied).

All the best,
Deborah

https://www.accessnow.org/page/-/docs/HRC25_BriefingNote_20130228.pdf
 *Briefing note: Human Rights Council 25th* *session*

*By Deborah Brown (Access), Joy Liddicoat and Shawna Finnegan (Association
for Progressive Communications)*
Introduction:

The 25th session of the Human Rights Council (HRC) will take place in
Geneva from March 3rd to 28th. This note provides information on internet
related human rights issues in the upcoming session of the HRC. Overall, we
can see the continuing trend of the HRC addressing internet and human
rights issues in increasingly diverse aspects of its work. This is the
Council's 25th session and will see internet issues considered across a
broad range of topics, including in the context of peaceful protest, good
governance, freedom of region and belief, the sale of children, child
prostitution and child pornography, human rights defenders, cultural
rights, and the rights of persons with disabilities to education. We
continue to see more special procedures mandate holders (or Special
Rapporteurs) referring to the internet, and internet issues continue to be
raised on a country-specific basis, through for example the issues of
content blocking and censorship in the Universal Periodic Review
(UPR)1<#sdfootnote1sym>processes relating to Pakistan and Malaysia.
Surveillance and Human Rights:

The right to privacy in age of mass government surveillance is increasingly
on the Council's agenda. On the heels of a historic
resolution<https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2013/11/26/un-general-assembly-takes-critical-step-to-address-privacy-amid-surveillanc>at
the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on the Right to Privacy in the Digital
Age (A/RES/68/167<http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167>),
an expert seminar<http://www.genf.diplo.de/Vertretung/genf/en/__pr/Aktuelles-2014-en/2014-02-19-seminar-privatsphaere-en.html>was
held just ahead of HRC25 for the purpose of identifying
ways forward to ensure the protection of human rights in an increasingly
interconnected world. Organized by the co-sponsors of the UNGA resolution
Brazil and Germany together with Austria, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Norway and
Switzerland, the seminar sought to specifically address the question of
whether and how surveillance undertaken domestically or extraterritorially
may infringe on human rights.

Among the many distinguished speakers was the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights Navi Pillay, who opened the meeting. In her opening
remarks<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14276&LangID=E>she
acknowledged that wide gaps between current legal frameworks and
technological developments have led to a blurring of lines between public
and private spheres; a lack of accountability and oversight in current
practices; and the need for clarity on the role and obligation of
companies. Pillay also highlighted the issue of surveillance in the digital
age in her annual report to the Council, which will be presented at HRC25
(see below for more information). The High Commissioner's office will be
writing a report dedicated to this issue, which should be completed in July
and considered at both the HRC's 27th session in September and the
69thsession of the General Assembly soon after. Her office has issued
an open
call<https://docs.google.com/a/accessnow.org/file/d/0B6XUJ0SW4C68MllEWktTR0FLMGc/edit>for
inputing into the report and creating a dedicated section on the
Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' website for the material
submitted.

The seminar also provided the sponsoring states with an opportunity to hear
form the experts on what steps the Council should take to advance efforts
to protect the right to privacy in the digital age. Among the options
discussed were a new special procedures mandate focused specifically on
this issue; a new General Comment from the Human Rights
Committee<http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/ccpr/pages/ccprindex.aspx>;
a new Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx>;
and an advisory opinion from the International Court of
Justice<http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en>on the
extraterritorial application of human rights obligations in the
context of communications technology. Each option offers a different set of
tools, ranging from advancing norms to oversight and regular reporting.

It is unlikely for the HRC to address the substance of this issue until the
report is considered in September, however HRC25 will likely see a
procedural resolution calling for a panel to discuss the High
Commissioner's report at its 27th session. Nonetheless, one could expect
surveillance and whistle-blowers to come up various ways during this
session, in particular during the High Level Segment at the beginning of
the session when ministers and other high-level officials address the
Council and in Agenda item 3 (*Promotion and protection of all human
rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including
the right to development)*.

Additionally, during the same time as HRC25, the U.S. will be under
review<http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=625&Lang=en>at
another human rights body in Geneva- the Human Rights Committee. The
Committee is an expert body that reviews government compliance with treaty
obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR). From the afternoon2 <#sdfootnote2sym> of Thursday, 13 March
through Friday, 14 March, the U.S. will stand before the Committee and be
questioned<http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/USA/Q/4&Lang=en>on
a range of human rights issues, including its policies on
surveillance<https://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights-national-security/un-review-nsa-privacy-violations-among-other-us-rights-abuses>in
the context of Article 17 of the ICCPR. A number of civil society
organizations have submitted shadow reports on the issue and there will be
events in Geneva to raise awareness and pressure (see more information in
the "side events" section below).

Plenary sessions will be live streamed and archived at:
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/c/un-human-rights-council.html

All documents for HRC25 including the reports referenced below can be found
here<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session25/Pages/ListReports.aspx>.


The twitter hashtag for the session is #HRC25
HRC 25 Agenda items relevant to internet rights

*Item 2. Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the
Secretary-General*

*Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(A/HRC/25/19)*

40. OHCHR continued to address other complex legal and policy challenges,
including *issues relating to mass surveillance and the right to privacy in
the digital age. While modern communications technology provides a powerful
tool for democracy, it has also contributed to a blurring of lines between
the public and the private spheres, and has generated unprecedented levels
of interference with the right to privacy.*

*Agenda Items 2 and 3: Annual report of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human*

*Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the
Secretary-General and Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to
development*

*Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the
deliberations held during the seminar on effective measures and best
practices to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights in the
context of peaceful protests (A/HRC/25/32)*

5. *The High Commissioner noted that protests were better organized and
more innovative than ever, aided by new means of communication, including
social media, thus raising more publicity and awareness about underlying
causes.* She expressed regret that in too many situations, peaceful
protests were met with brutal repression, including excessive use of force,
arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture and even summary
executions or extrajudicial killings. Restrictive laws were passed,
limiting the space for peaceful protest, non-violent acts were criminalized
and those exercising their rights were prosecuted and subjected to unfair
trials. *In addition, journalists, Internet users and human rights
defenders were threatened, intimidated and harassed because of their role
in documenting and denouncing human rights violations committed in the
context of peaceful protests.*

16, *Finally, the important role of social media in peaceful protest was
acknowledged by participants. New information and communications
technologies enabled and facilitated the enjoyment of the rights to freedom
of expression, peaceful assembly and association. Therefore, panellists
observed, the use of social media and the Internet should be protected and
facilitated in the context of peaceful protests.*

*Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the
role of the public service as an essential component of good governance in
the promotion and protection of human rights (A/HRC/25/27)*

Assessing public service employees

59. Some Member States have a system of assessing employees using key
performance indicators and *taking into account the views of online
communities*. Latvia has introduced new regulations that allow for a
360-degree performance evaluation for those working in public service.

E-technology

60. *Many Member States are modernizing their public service systems with
the use of e-technology, given that increasing numbers of people have
access to mobile telephones, even in remote and poor areas of Burkina Faso
and Morocco. Cameroon has a website (and a radio programme) on public
services. Mauritius has introduced a human rights e-portal.*

*Others maybe of interest (not available yet)*

   -

   A/HRC/25/34 Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
   Rights on combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization
   of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against,
   persons based on religion or belief.
   -

   A/HRC/25/30 Rights of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
   Rights on persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic
   minorities.

 *Agenda Item 3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to
development*

*Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner
Bielefeldt*

In his annual report
(*A/HRC/25/58)*<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session25/Documents/A-HRC-25-58_en.doc%20>,
the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt
focuses on the need to tackle manifestations of collective religious
hatred, making specific reference to the internet:

Public and private media should be encouraged to help overcome religious or
belief-related stereotypes by replacing these with more accurate and
nuanced information. By promoting more balanced representations,
professional journalism, including investigative journalism, can contribute
to a public atmosphere of common sense, realism and experience, serving as
an antidote to conspiracy theories, misperceptions and public hysteria. *As
new social media and the Internet have become major tools for fostering
advocacy of religious hatred and incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence in many countries, specific efforts should be directed towards
understanding and addressing this phenomenon appropriately*;

[To be debated 11 March, 12:00-15:00 CET]

*Report of the Special Rapporteur on on the sale of children, child
prostitution and child pornography, Najat Maalla M'jid (A/HRC/25/55)*

49. Similarly, *the expansion of the Internet and social networking has had
an impact on children's social norms.* The exposure of children to child
pornography inspires and influences their sexual practices and affects
their behaviour. Prevailing standards and peer pressure has led adolescents
to share sexualized images of themselves, making them vulnerable to abuse
and potentially redefining some of the social limits of acceptability of
child pornography.

53. *The Internet brings tremendous positive opportunities, in particular
for children and young people.* *Although the Internet may not represent a
determinant per se of the sale and sexual exploitation of children, it does
nonetheless operate as an instrument for offenders, multiplying the
possibilities of obtaining, distributing and selling child abuse material
and facilitating access to children in all parts of the world, and
consequently promoting the growth of this phenomenon.*

[To be debated 12 March, 09:00-12:00 CET]

*Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights
defenders, Margaret Sekaggya (A/HRC/25/55)*

92. With regard to youth and student defenders, the Special Rapporteur is
concerned about how youth is perceived in society. Often, their young age
and alleged lack of maturity are used as grounds for not giving them a say
in public affairs. The Special Rapporteur regrets that there is a trend in
many countries of passing legislation that prohibits young people from
participating in public assemblies. *Other legislative moves pertain to the
Internet, social media and instant messaging, which are increasingly
subject to control by Governments.*

There are also many references to journalists and media workers in this
report, where internet related issues may arise.

[To be debated 10 March, 09:00-12:00 CET]

*Thematic study on the right of persons with disabilities to education
(A/HRC/25/29)*

45. There may be numerous support measures based on individual education
plans, ranging from the provision of compensatory aids, special learning
aids, *assistive and information technology and the application of special
education procedures.* One of the most important measures is the use of a
learning support assistant, either shared or on a one-to-one basis,
depending on the needs of the student. It is important to stress that this
non-exhaustive list is a continuum of support measures reflected in article
24, paragraph 2 (d) and (e), of the Convention.

[To be debated 9 March, 12:00-15:00 CET]

*Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Farida
Shaheed (A/HRC/25/49) *

91. The role of external actors in shaping memorial landscape has been
transformed by the use of information technology. *The Internet has led to
the internationalization of memory processes, an evolution epitomized by
the memorialization of the Gulag*.

[To be debated 12 March, 09:00-12:00 CET]

*Agenda Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council's
attention*

*Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (A/HRC/25/63)*

30. *Strengthening market forces and advancements in information technology
have allowed greater access to information from outside the country as
information and media from the Republic of Korea and China increasingly
enter the country. *The State's monopoly on information is therefore being
challenged by the increasing flow of outside information into the country
and the ensuing curiosity of the people for "truths" other than those
provided by State propaganda. Authorities seek to preserve their monopoly
on information by carrying out regular crackdowns and enforcing harsh
punishments.

[To be debated 17 March 10:00-13:00 CET]

*Others maybe of interest (not available yet)*

   -

   A/HRC/25/26 Report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human
   rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran [To be debated 18 March 14:00-18:00
   CET]
   -

   A/HRC/25/64 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
   rights in Myanmar, Tomás Ojea Quintana [To be debated 18 March 14:00-18:00
   CET]

 *Special Procedures Appointments*

The 25th session of the Human Rights Council will also include appointments
of <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/HRC25.aspx%20>*mandate
holders* <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/HRC25.aspx%20>,
including Special Rapporteurs on the situation on human rights defenders,
the rights of indigenous peoples and on the sale of children, child
prostitution and child pornography.

*Panels*

   -

   Civil society space: creating and maintaining, in law and in practice, a
   safe and enabling environment: The Council will hold a panel discussion to
   address the importance of the promotion and protection of civil society
   space, which will, inter alia, contribute to the identification of
   challenges facing States in their efforts to ensure space for civil society
   and lessons learned and good practices in this regard. (11 March,
   15:00-18:00 CET)
   -

   Rights of persons with disabilities: Annual interactive debate on the
   rights of persons with disabilities with a focus on the right of persons
   with disabilities to education (19 March, 12:00-15:00 CET)

 *Side Events*

   -

   The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age (American Civil Liberties
   Union), 13 March, 11:00-13:00 CET
   -

   Adoption of Malaysia's 2nd UPR Report *Implementing the Accepted
   Recommendations: The Challenges Ahead *Friday 21 March 12:00-14:00 CET


  1 <#sdfootnote1anc>At its 25th session, the Council will consider and
adopt the final outcome of the review of Belize (A/HRC/25/13), Central
African Republic (A/HRC/25/11), Chad (A/HRC/25/14), China (A/HRC/25/5),
Congo (A/HRC/25/16), Israel (A/HRC/25/15), Jordan (A/HRC/25/9), Malta
(A/HRC/25/17), Malaysia (A/HRC/25/10), Mauritius (A/HRC/25/8), Mexico
(A/HRC/25/7), Monaco (A/HRC/25/12), Nigeria (A/HRC/25/6), Saudi Arabia
(A/HRC/25/3) and Senegal (A/HRC/25/4).

2 <#sdfootnote2anc>Note: all times referenced in this briefing note are in
Central European Time (CET/GMT+1)

-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org
rightscon.org

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140301/adfeaa11/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: HRC25_BriefingNote_20130228.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 277787 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140301/adfeaa11/attachment.pdf>

From avri at acm.org  Mon Mar 10 15:31:47 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:31:47 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E0EBD.5010005@ITforChange.net>
References: <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net> <531E0669.1070401@ITforChange.net> <531E0D9F.6090405@acm.org> <531E0EBD.5010005@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <531E1323.8080608@acm.org>



On 10-Mar-14 15:13, Guru गुरु wrote:
> On 03/11/2014 12:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10-Mar-14 14:37, Guru गुरु wrote:
>>> 'you need not use Google search' is quite impractical/rhetorical
>>
>>
>> I use mostly duckduckgoo,
>
> Avri
>
> I am eager to know why do you mostly use duckduckgoo
>
> Guru
>
>

Eager?
how could I refuse.

no ads
no IP history kept for tracing back of queries (privacy enhancement)
well ordered useful links.
instant answers
useful add-on services



cheers

avri




>> sometimes bing. and sometimes google to.  i have set my browsers, and
>> i use various as can anyone, to choose duckduckgo as my primary search.
>>
>> doesn't seem rhetorical, it is easily done.
>>
>> also seems practical to me.  and i don't think there is anything
>> privileged or especially knowledgeable/geeky about doing what i do.  i
>> learned about duckduckgo orginally from a non geek when i was
>> bemoaning the loss of scroogle - but they did piggyback on google.
>>
>> avri
>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Mon Mar 10 15:34:07 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:34:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <531E13AF.4080808@cis-india.org>

Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-03-08 6:44:03]:
>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>> education policy making, and so on...
>
>
> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this
> for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done
> without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on
> the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder
> offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this
> process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been
> going on in secret.

I don't see how "multistakeholder" models offer that chance rather than 
having a transparent process of legislating, including having 
green/white papers, public consultations, making the responses to the 
consultations public, requiring statements of interests from bureaucrats 
and legislators, having watchdog bodies, having research staff, having 
an ombudsman body for receiving complaints about corruption, etc.  One 
can have all of this without "multistakeholder decision-making processes".

Of course, if we're equating a open and consultative process with 
"multistakeholder" model, then we're in opposition; we would have a 
disagreement about vocabulary, though.  At the end of the day, 
businesses are accountable to shareholders alone and academics are 
accountable to their institutions alone, while democratic governments 
are, at least in theory and often in practice, accountable to the voting 
public.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140310/59968097/attachment.sig>

From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Mon Mar 10 16:07:18 2014
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:07:18 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E1323.8080608@acm.org>
References: <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net> <531E0669.1070401@ITforChange.net> <531E0D9F.6090405@acm.org> <531E0EBD.5010005@ITforChange.net> <531E1323.8080608@acm.org>
Message-ID: <531E1B76.6090500@softwarefreedom.org>

Moi Aussi!  Almost exactly like Avri but with no Bing!

On 03/10/2014 03:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
> On 10-Mar-14 15:13, Guru गुरु wrote:
>> On 03/11/2014 12:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10-Mar-14 14:37, Guru गुरु wrote:
>>>> 'you need not use Google search' is quite impractical/rhetorical
>>>
>>>
>>> I use mostly duckduckgoo,
>>
>> Avri
>>
>> I am eager to know why do you mostly use duckduckgoo
>>
>> Guru
>>
>>
>
> Eager?
> how could I refuse.
>
> no ads
> no IP history kept for tracing back of queries (privacy enhancement)
> well ordered useful links.
> instant answers
> useful add-on services
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
>>> sometimes bing. and sometimes google to.  i have set my browsers, and
>>> i use various as can anyone, to choose duckduckgo as my primary search.
>>>
>>> doesn't seem rhetorical, it is easily done.
>>>
>>> also seems practical to me.  and i don't think there is anything
>>> privileged or especially knowledgeable/geeky about doing what i do.  i
>>> learned about duckduckgo orginally from a non geek when i was
>>> bemoaning the loss of scroogle - but they did piggyback on google.
>>>
>>> avri
>>


-- 
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


From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Mar 10 23:11:56 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:11:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
	<531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
	<2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
	<53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
	<531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
	<53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
	<5318460E.7080301@apc.org>
	<531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>
	<53199B28.2090701@apc.org>
	<531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdhQ3A5UZt7hJ0Jbj4VdK=_PG+vF+i2ck38EN_YW4oyXw@mail.gmail.com>

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) is responsible for
overseeing and aiding Internet development in the country, as well as
the coordination and integration of all Internet services initiatives.
It was established by a Inter-ministerial (Ministry of Communication
and Ministry of Science, Technology and Inovation) Ordinance in 1995,
and later amended by a Presidential Decree in 2003. The CGI.br is
currently composed by 21 members:


-Nine representatives of the Federal Government:

Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation - that also coordinates
the Committee;

Ministry of Communication;

Presidential Cabinet;

Ministry of Defense;

Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade;

Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management;

National Telecommunication Agency;

National Council for Scientific, and Technological Development ;

National Council of State Secretariats for Science Technology and
Information Issues


-Four representatives from the corporate sector

Internet access and content providers;

Telecommunication infrastructure providers;

Hardware, telecommunication and software industries;

Enterprises that use the Internet .


- Four representatives from the third sector (NGOs, civil society
non-profit organizations)

- Three representatives from the scientific and technological community

- One Internet Expert


The representatives are elected every 3 years by their own sectors, an
electoral college previously settled for this only purpose, and most
of the decisions are taken by consensus. The meetings occur monthly
and, depending on the subject being debated, the Committee passes
resolutions proposing policies, recommending standards and procedures,
establishing strategic directives . These recommendations haven't any
legal power, their aim is to inform the policies and legislation and
Internet governance stakeholders actions. CGI.br is thus a true
multistakeholder body. The federal government is well represented but
does not have a majority of voting member neither has influence over
the representatives election.

In order to perform its activities, the CGI.br created a non - profit
civil organization, the Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br)
that, with the names registration surplus, provides a range of
services to the Brazilian Internet community as is illustrated:


registering and maintaining <.br> domain names, as well as allocating
Autonomous System Numbers (ASN) and IPv4 or IPv6 addresses in the
country throug Registro.br;

handling and responding to computer security incidents involving
networks connected to the Brazilian Internet, which are activities to
be carried out by CERT.br;

projects that support and improve the network infrastructure in the
country, such as the direct interconnection between networks (PTT.br)
and the distribution of the Brazilian Official Time (NTP.br). These
projects are the responsibility of CEPTRO.br;

producing and publishing indicators, statistics and strategic
information on the development of the Brazilian Internet, under the
responsibility of CETIC.br;

promoting studies and recommending procedures, norms and technical and
operational standards that will improve network and Internet service
security, as well as ensure its increased and adequate use by society,
as established by the W3C.br;

providing technical and operational support to LACNIC, the Internet
Address Registry for Latin America and the Caribbean.


On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:32 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Friday 07 March 2014 03:40 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> I think it is not so clear cut.
>
> We live in a time of governance processes changing, and we have
> opportunities to make them more democratic.
>
> I recently had a discussion with someone in the government of Brazil who
> is very active in CGI.br.
>
> I asked him whether CGI.br is a platform for policy shaping (to use
> Jovan's term) or policy making.  My understanding was that it was primarily
> for policy shaping.
>
> He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body that
> can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these lists can
> give examples.
>
> CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body that is
> multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public policies, as
> well as make recommendations for public policies.
>
>
> I will like to hear of an instance of CGI.Br having made a public policy.
> Can you offer one.. then we will know what exactly are we discussing here.
>
> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical decisions,
> is also the difference between original public policy authority and
> delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that are rather well
> worked out in the texts of political science and public administration.
>
> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being subject to
> a higher authority (judicial review being a different matter) and is
> accompanied with legitimate coercive power for enforcement. Such power only
> lies with elected representatives in democracies. It cannot, for instance,
> be exercised by business representatives .
>
> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex manner
> whereby national legislatures often need to ratify international treaties,
> and while many of such treaties carry enforcement elements, the manner of
> their national application remain in a somewhat complex interplay with
> national political systems. But this system of global public policies still
> works.)
>
> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public policy
> function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>
> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political definitions
> regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points for big business to
> exercise formal political power..... Once such a role is established on
> some areas, then this power migrates upwards to cover all areas of our
> social and political existence. This is what is happening now.
>
> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in public
> policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where big business
> can thus exercise formal political power, and where it cannot. The
> multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the one offered by
> Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at the global level.
> Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at the global level. Such
> efforts are of course already afoot. And then gradually this models is
> brought to the national levels.
>
> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
> contributing so strongly to...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, but
> it is multi-stakeholder.
>
> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
> different parts of government is represented which his important. Business
> is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>
> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how public
> policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go beyond the
> traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without public
> consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.
>
> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models to
> be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it does
> not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also propose and
> promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS
> space.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>  On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>
> Joy
>
> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>
> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov
> participants(which includes business) should be on the same footing as
> gov participants in terms of actually *making public **policies*
>
> *. *Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>
>  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>
> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, which
> arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying statements.
>
> parminder
>
> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy - or
> is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I hope
> such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks.
>
>
>  On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>
> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full
> quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>
> Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full
> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
> international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
> role in relation to international internet governance.
>
> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are
> not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on record
> in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are simply one
> form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites
> a range of other documents and says, taken together, certain principles
> relevant to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>
> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>
> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best
> Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant
> to internet governance
> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing
> so; and
> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore
> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though they
> can of course be involved/consulted) .
>
> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which is
> relevant to internet governance
> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or parity
> with each other when doing so;
>
> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which
> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial is
> considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human rights
> (among others) are relevant to them.
>
>
> Joy
> Joy
> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use
> of 'multilateral'.
>
> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>
> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full
> involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
> international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
> role in relation to international internet governance."
>
> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense
> as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries.  We
> did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>
> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how we
> understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the private
> sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government
> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet
> governance."
>
> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term
> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning "among
> governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we certainly
> did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one government
> should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of other
> stakeholders too.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>  And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has
> this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet
> governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable
> access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process."
> Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>
> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission
> to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>
> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  -
> which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>
> *Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder
> participation"* and whether it is different from what is meant in the
> above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you
> seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please
> address this point specifically.
>
>
>  Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on
> the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself:
> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was "parity"
> and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is
> somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have
> about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>
>
>
> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean *parity* in *decision making*about *public
> policies *between gov and non gov actors....
>
>
>
> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS
> contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder
> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>
> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral
> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governance should be
> multilateral and democratic. "
>
> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present
> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come from
> the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>
> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted as
> somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and G
> 8 principles....
>
> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically
> speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not figure
> (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy
> (the other two docs)
>
> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society
> actors in IG space - come up with .....
>
> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this
> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics"
> you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity,
> accountability, and *equitable multistakeholder participation *"
> (emphasis added)
>
> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word
> 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone and
> was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know which is
> worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc.
>
> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get
> caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of the
> wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic world,
> that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part
> of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful
> warriors of the neolib order.
>
> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable
> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting
> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches what
> some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US supported
> status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial......
> All of piece.
>
> parminder
>
>
> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on
> this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if
> we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too
> difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to
> NetMundial
>
> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the people,
> possess public authority including internet-related public policy issues
> and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic
> legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure
> that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation
> complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of
> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves,
> and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of
> empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private
> sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and
> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet,
> and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials
> for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to
> information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society,
> all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>      --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>  WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140310/3dba9009/attachment.htm>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 10 23:50:53 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:20:53 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531E1323.8080608@acm.org>
References: <531E0241.7000302@ITforChange.net> <531E0669.1070401@ITforChange.net> <531E0D9F.6090405@acm.org> <531E0EBD.5010005@ITforChange.net> <531E1323.8080608@acm.org>
Message-ID: <531E881D.7070002@ITforChange.net>

On 03/11/2014 01:01 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
> On 10-Mar-14 15:13, Guru गुरु wrote:
>> On 03/11/2014 12:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10-Mar-14 14:37, Guru गुरु wrote:
>>>> 'you need not use Google search' is quite impractical/rhetorical
>>>
>>>
>>> I use mostly duckduckgoo,
>>
>> Avri
>>
>> I am eager to know why do you mostly use duckduckgoo
>>
>> Guru
>>
>>
>
> Eager?
> how could I refuse.
>
> no ads
> no IP history kept for tracing back of queries (privacy enhancement)


Thanks Avri, I suspected as much. imho, we need to have clear rules in 
place, made democratically, ("regulation") to ensure that a monopoly 
provider cannot so easily extract personal/social information for 
private gains.... Your individual good practice cannot be seen as a real 
global solution (for reasons which I have already mentioned, as to why 
Google is  a monopoly)

regards
Guru

> well ordered useful links.
> instant answers
> useful add-on services
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
>>> sometimes bing. and sometimes google to.  i have set my browsers, and
>>> i use various as can anyone, to choose duckduckgo as my primary search.
>>>
>>> doesn't seem rhetorical, it is easily done.
>>>
>>> also seems practical to me.  and i don't think there is anything
>>> privileged or especially knowledgeable/geeky about doing what i do.  i
>>> learned about duckduckgo orginally from a non geek when i was
>>> bemoaning the loss of scroogle - but they did piggyback on google.
>>>
>>> avri
>>


From antiropy at gmail.com  Mon Mar 10 23:53:48 2014
From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 12:53:48 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Korean Civil Society Contribution to NETmnundial
Message-ID: <CAOGFQRw-QJD1S3huC8wCsqzLey+TJVuCnUbUsTkRkv2z2JHhYQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello, all

Several Korean civil society organizations including Korean Progressive
Network Jinbonet, Open Net (Korea), CyberCommons (Korea), Citizens'
Coalition for Economic Justice, Network Neutrality User Forum, submitted
Korean civil society opinions to NETmundial.
I'd like to share it with you.
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/korean-civil-society-submission-for-netmundial/146

Best,
Byoungil Oh (Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet)

-- 
<http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140311/07faef0d/attachment.htm>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Tue Mar 11 06:14:21 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:44:21 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Vodafone accused of secretly sharing data with British
 agency
Message-ID: <531EE1FD.4040607@ITforChange.net>

In the light of the large scale complicity of transnational IT 
corporates in colluding with their political masters (see today's news 
item from the same newspaper which reported the Google market 
malpractice probe yesterday),  how do we expect  any meaningful progress 
in global public policy making to protect and promote public interest in 
Internet Governance through the 'multi-stakeholderism' model, wherein 
these economic powerhouses can stall/stalemate any policy proposals that 
affect their economic interests / political interests of their masters?

I look forward to hear from those who think 'equal footing' for 
corporates in the public policy making processes is a good idea. For me 
the 8 years of the IGF is a clear proof that anything in the public 
interest that affects the political/economic interests of these groups 
can make little or no progress adopting a multi-stakeholder model... And 
such a stalemate has terrible costs for some others, over these 8 years, 
the net has become even much more a symbol of concentration of power...

imho, progress can come when people/institutions/networks believing in 
the idea of a public interest come together to resist these powerful 
forces. and I see these comprising to a good extent,  of many friends 
and sympathisers from the developed countries,working with developing 
country governments (many of who are practising democracies), academia 
and civil society institutions/networks...

regards,
Guru

Vodafone accused of secretly sharing data with British agency
New Delhi, Mar 10, 2014, (PTI)

Major telecom player Vodafone has been accused by the Union Home 
Ministry of secretly sharing subscriber data with a British intelligence 
and security organisation, a charge denied by the company.

According to documents of the Internal Security Division of the Home 
Ministry, Vodafone is alleged to have given the UK-based Government 
Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) "secret unlimited access to their 
network of under sea cables, which carry much of world's phone calls and 
Internet traffic". "GCHQ's mass tapping operations has been built up 
over the past five years by attaching intercept probes to the 
transatlantic cables where they land on British shores," the home 
ministry documents claimed. "Intercept partners are paid for logistical 
assistance," it said....

for more, read 
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/391064/voda-accused-secretly-sharing-data.html

From avri at acm.org  Tue Mar 11 08:52:51 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:52:51 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] NetMundial Contributions
Message-ID: <531F0723.4090606@acm.org>

Hi,

I ended up submitting 4 short contributions to NetMundial.

As the formatting in the submissions ends up horrid, I also put copies 
in my blog.  Both are listed.  I have also corrected some typos (i am 
sure there are more) in the blog versions.


1 - Multistakeholder model as a form of democracy (117)  (Principle)

http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/multstakeholder-model-as-a-form-of-democracy/117.pdf

http://avri.doria.org/post/78738489226/the-multistakeholder-model-is-a-form-of-democracy

2 - One possible roadmap for IANA evolution (153) (Roadmap)

http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/one-possible-roadmap-for-iana-evolution/153.pdf

http://avri.doria.org/post/78863643474/one-possible-roadmap-for-iana-evolution

3 - Discussion of Principles related to Stakeholder Roles and 
Responsibilities  (2012) (Combined)

http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/discussion-of-principles-related-to-stakeholder-roles-and-responsibilities/201.pdf

http://avri.doria.org/post/78896938171/discussion-of-principles-related-to-stakeholder-roles

4 - Bottom-up Oversight in Multistakeholder Organizations  (237) (roadmap)

http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/bottom-up-oversight-in-multistakeholder-organizations/237.pdf

http://avri.doria.org/post/78949618590/bottom-up-oversight-of-multistakeholder-processes


Note: I understand a zip of all contributions can be found at: 
http://linguasynaptica.com/netmundial-contributions-archive/

From shawna at apc.org  Tue Mar 11 14:44:58 2014
From: shawna at apc.org (Shawna Finnegan)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:44:58 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Job opportunity with APC: Internet Rights Outreach and
 Capacity-building Coordinator for the Maghreb-Machrek region
In-Reply-To: <530CCD2D.9020705@apc.org>
References: <530CCD2D.9020705@apc.org>
Message-ID: <531F59AA.2010609@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear all,

I apologize for cross-posting. APC is hiring an Outreach and
Capacity-building Coordinator to lead our internet rights networking
and capacity-building work with human rights defenders and women's
rights groups in the Maghreb-Machrek region.

Detailed specifications of the position are available here:
https://www.apc.org/en/news/job-opportunity-internet-rights-outreach-and-capac

Please share this job posting with anyone who you think may be
interested. The deadline to apply is March 24th.

Best wishes,

Shawna

- --------------------------------*
Job opportunity: Internet Rights Outreach and Capacity-building
Coordinator for the Maghreb-Machrek region*

APC is seeking an outreach and capacity building coordinator to join its
Communications and Information Policy Programme (CIPP) to coordinate
APC's internet rights networking and capacity-building work with women's
and human rights defenders in the Maghreb-Machrek region.

Main purpose of the job: The outreach and capacity building coordinator
will be responsible for coordinating APC's regional and national
advocacy, networking and learning activities in the Maghreb-Machrek
region. These activities form part of a larger project that aims to make
regulatory frameworks governing the internet in the region more rights
oriented and to empower human rights defenders, women's rights groups
and others in civil society to use the internet effectively, safely and
securely.




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=MgS3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Mar 11 15:51:51 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:51:51 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] Report from Pew and Elon on Digital Life
 in 2025
In-Reply-To: <CF44DCFC.3AD09%andersj@elon.edu>
References: <CF40CEE8.2135D%bommelaer@isoc.org>
	<CF44DCFC.3AD09%andersj@elon.edu>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeud6j6BppuqUeCdVmkX2NN6g1-MZLa5HbcAFD+j+iivA@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Janna Anderson <andersj at elon.edu>
Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:48 PM
Subject: [discuss] Report from Pew and Elon on Digital Life in 2025
To: "discuss at 1net.org List" <discuss at 1net.org>, "
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org" <
governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>, "air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org" <
air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org>


  Apologies for cross-posts...

 Many people on this list may find a report released by Pew Research and
the Imagining the Internet Center today to be relevant and useful. Titled*
"Digital Life in 2025
<http://www.elon.edu/e-web/imagining/surveys/2014_survey/2025_Internet_Impact.xhtml>*,"
it is an analysis of nearly 1,500 responses to a question about the impact
of the Internet by 2025. (Thanks to the many people in this group who
participated in the survey.)

 Among the 15 themes that were identified in the analysis of the responses
were several that prove that close attention must be devoted - as it is now
and beyond - to the details of Internet evolution.

 *The 15 themes extracted from the 150 pages (single-spaced) of survey
responses to the question on Internet impact by 2025 and good and bad
results include: *

- The Internet will be invisibly interwoven in daily life.
- It could be much more advanced or it may be much the same in 2025 but
more people will certainly have access globally.
- The spread of the Internet will enhance global connectivity that fosters
more relationships and less ignorance.
- The Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and big data will make
people more aware of their world and their own behavior.
- Augmented reality and wearable devices will be implemented to monitor and
give quick feedback, especially in regard to personal health.
- Political awareness and action will be facilitated and more peaceful
change and public uprisings like the Arab Spring will emerge.
- The spread of the "Ubernet" will diminish the meaning of borders, and new
"nations" of those with shared interests may emerge and exist beyond the
capacity of current nation-states to control
- The Internet will become "the Internets" as access, systems, and
principles are renegotiated.
- An Internet-enabled revolution in education will spread more
opportunities.
- Dangerous divides between "haves" and "have-nots" may expand, resulting
in resentment and possible violence.
- Abuses and abusers will "evolve and scale," human nature isn't changing -
there's laziness, bullying, stalking, pornography, dirty tricks, crime.
- Governments and corporations will try to assert power as they invoke
security and cultural norms.
- People will make tradeoffs favoring convenience and perceived immediate
gains over privacy.
*- Humans and their current organizations may not respond quickly enough to
the challenges presented by complex networks.*
*- Most people are not yet noticing the profound changes communications
networks are already bringing about.*
*- Foresight and accurate predictions can make a difference.*


 I highlighted the last three because they are of extreme importance,
according to some of the wisest of the experts surveyed.

 You can read the full details of the report and nearly all of the
responses given or download the report here:


http://www.elon.edu/e-web/imagining/surveys/2014_survey/2025_Internet_Impact.xhtml
- full report online on one page

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/imagining/surveys/2014_survey/2025_Internet_Impact_credit.xhtml
-
all for-credit responses
http://www.elon.edu/e-web/imagining/surveys/2014_survey/2025_Internet_Impact_anon.xhtml
-
all anonymous responses that provide value (beyond answers such as "I have
no idea" or "Same" or "Different")

 Best regards,
 Janna

 --
 Janna Quitney Anderson
Director, Imagining the Internet Center
www.imaginingtheinternet.org
Associate Professor
School of Communications
Elon University

andersj at elon.edu
(336) 278-5733 (o)
Twitter:  @JannaQ   https://twitter.com/JANNAQ
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson


_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140311/d59b860f/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Wed Mar 12 19:28:46 2014
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:28:46 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Civil society input - call for contributions -
 General Assembly Resolution 67/167 "The right to privacy in the digital
 age"
In-Reply-To: <1116688586741.1103337725730.4115.0.141247JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com>
References: <1116688586741.1103337725730.4115.0.141247JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQa+UBWfB=Cpuo68jS+bm+jpapEOuDEqRq9ZX4gn1fZx+A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Apologies for cross-posting, but I don't think this call for input into
OHCHR's report on the right to privacy in the digital age has been
circulated here.
Is anyone thinking of/interested in preparing a submission? Note the
deadline is 1 April.

All the best,
Deborah


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: OHCHR Civil Society Section <civilsociety at ohchr.org>
Date: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:48 PM
Subject: Civil society input - call for contributions - General Assembly
Resolution 67/167 "The right to privacy in the digital age"
To: deborah at accessnow.org




*中文    ***    Español    ***    Français    ***    العربية    ***
 Pусский*
 For an unofficial translation of this message into another language you
may try:
http://translate.google.com/<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001_HHy_JNMy3hOyiouisyAl4SmeAKDN0okoBKJA0RY70MB7IYHvr-rq4as226y0RaUuS8VD7gKVvm_ns4SYy_arcSLZOUhg6TnOl8a_6-zT4bUBPuuaf6QBIwrW91LprmJz3z2uHRYz5ryJXYc4PkoiawhP1Ap4mOFJY9e8GO7W5t8eXxUteCvDw==&c=f9HN7dFh9VO61S6NTJNqMrC2zC-bzJCB2Pyl1pH12xKtC6Yce3tYiw==&ch=-uRmtG_uRtUnyoaC_hJsv-nD1QbvQm75Z-QKai2zIC6ePMKyOae2Og==>


 Civil Society Section

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights



Dear civil society actors,



 We are pleased to forward this call for
contributions<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001_HHy_JNMy3hOyiouisyAl4SmeAKDN0okoBKJA0RY70MB7IYHvr-rq_JqogFQnQrzUi68oJj8p3hWgqLb2S93gAgz5BtHLXtlOTc04SkBRZlgjmnpgRyJ68QR1U9pZE2kPKVJFYdTH6rmDvvHjn-v60clO8T_AOYZykR_PUPo9f7oj3zFc9VplcJSiSzbMj9qykb-Pv5QrpQ3k8hmy8pIVuQQy0OAwY3dajuGWOK9wD8veXDFYTTaBelQH9-FoI71&c=f9HN7dFh9VO61S6NTJNqMrC2zC-bzJCB2Pyl1pH12xKtC6Yce3tYiw==&ch=-uRmtG_uRtUnyoaC_hJsv-nD1QbvQm75Z-QKai2zIC6ePMKyOae2Og==>
in
connection with the General Assembly Resolution 67/167 "The right to
privacy in a digital age".



OHCHR on Facebook<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001_HHy_JNMy3hOyiouisyAl4SmeAKDN0okoBKJA0RY70MB7IYHvr-rq9WXjoT-v5MSHssiuscUUwlzyC-3s6PSNiEfcIiWce4svhEY7Yg3JP7r-tVgDfI1_xrl-Ay4b1fuK52tjYdWPjHRGahBiB6OSVx6hWk-DUQj2HTGpBWKZhewHhW5wBUHkZC-iASnECRCpdHrRYG7mZ8=&c=f9HN7dFh9VO61S6NTJNqMrC2zC-bzJCB2Pyl1pH12xKtC6Yce3tYiw==&ch=-uRmtG_uRtUnyoaC_hJsv-nD1QbvQm75Z-QKai2zIC6ePMKyOae2Og==>




OHCHR on Twitter<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001_HHy_JNMy3hOyiouisyAl4SmeAKDN0okoBKJA0RY70MB7IYHvr-rq8h7Ba7We8FYUeXSB2-KQM2_Rs-66XStFIcuewp0O6t7kj_g-jStt41NcnifJF0SCKr3MI87w5GrCS8z4MbBfrVytlwXzYyXTVLgajRw7CikRwt_KHKaWv65NcB9iwogtw==&c=f9HN7dFh9VO61S6NTJNqMrC2zC-bzJCB2Pyl1pH12xKtC6Yce3tYiw==&ch=-uRmtG_uRtUnyoaC_hJsv-nD1QbvQm75Z-QKai2zIC6ePMKyOae2Og==>



OHCHR on YouTube<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001_HHy_JNMy3hOyiouisyAl4SmeAKDN0okoBKJA0RY70MB7IYHvr-rq8h7Ba7We8FYpbO0hNXmrnFJIxs1jhqfMRoUAAfjsHYxVYLYqoppHGahcTfdkNPjTjAReFDK5ms5tr_MRn2FlOzMxwKq-sc5-2pvr0y_uqBZthbkgv4Szw8OXQIhPlXesg==&c=f9HN7dFh9VO61S6NTJNqMrC2zC-bzJCB2Pyl1pH12xKtC6Yce3tYiw==&ch=-uRmtG_uRtUnyoaC_hJsv-nD1QbvQm75Z-QKai2zIC6ePMKyOae2Og==>
 *中文    ***    Español    ***    Français    ***    العربية    ***
 Pусский *
For an unofficial translation of this message into another language you may
try:
http://translate.google.com/<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001_HHy_JNMy3hOyiouisyAl4SmeAKDN0okoBKJA0RY70MB7IYHvr-rq4as226y0RaUuS8VD7gKVvm_ns4SYy_arcSLZOUhg6TnOl8a_6-zT4bUBPuuaf6QBIwrW91LprmJz3z2uHRYz5ryJXYc4PkoiawhP1Ap4mOFJY9e8GO7W5t8eXxUteCvDw==&c=f9HN7dFh9VO61S6NTJNqMrC2zC-bzJCB2Pyl1pH12xKtC6Yce3tYiw==&ch=-uRmtG_uRtUnyoaC_hJsv-nD1QbvQm75Z-QKai2zIC6ePMKyOae2Og==>

   Best regards,

Civil Society Section
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Tel. +41 (0) 22 - 917 - 9656
Visit our website<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001_HHy_JNMy3hOyiouisyAl4SmeAKDN0okoBKJA0RY70MB7IYHvr-rq8RiNxJL_7j-qccBpz79Biq9u7Mtos__dKCBWl9XKDE8nehOtNN6B-S0XukYBQQwlvW7Pe7wgoWVJNjGyH3vwj34ooPANSkyyod37trHFkm5G-O5WleslSOdJgPgcYp_6a0stc8HMfl2DJR89CN19Sk6NZ1fdVH33UCBKTitVEFM&c=f9HN7dFh9VO61S6NTJNqMrC2zC-bzJCB2Pyl1pH12xKtC6Yce3tYiw==&ch=-uRmtG_uRtUnyoaC_hJsv-nD1QbvQm75Z-QKai2zIC6ePMKyOae2Og==>


Click here<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001_HHy_JNMy3hOyiouisyAl4SmeAKDN0okoBKJA0RY70MB7IYHvr-rq0uotbZHlsK8Jqo0W2Faer6w56_1OfGlRd3fJgPn8kYrAAMdcX1TMU4dXUPgMgkASFdAOK_kI01SLbHWAxIINeYzMX4fayoCAkg5qb-rfI7e50a4hseVrnk=&c=f9HN7dFh9VO61S6NTJNqMrC2zC-bzJCB2Pyl1pH12xKtC6Yce3tYiw==&ch=-uRmtG_uRtUnyoaC_hJsv-nD1QbvQm75Z-QKai2zIC6ePMKyOae2Og==>to
join our mailing list.

<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=0019ikTn3pgXwBPjNSMFyw7pw%3D%3D&ch=7cb82c40-5074-11e3-8bf5-d4ae527b8c41&ca=0af80ca6-b459-47e0-b2c8-6376d2918ead>
This email was sent to deborah at accessnow.org by civilsociety at ohchr.org |
Update Profile/Email
Address<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=0019ikTn3pgXwBPjNSMFyw7pw%3D%3D&ch=7cb82c40-5074-11e3-8bf5-d4ae527b8c41&ca=0af80ca6-b459-47e0-b2c8-6376d2918ead>
| Instant removal with
SafeUnsubscribe<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=0019ikTn3pgXwBPjNSMFyw7pw%3D%3D&ch=7cb82c40-5074-11e3-8bf5-d4ae527b8c41&ca=0af80ca6-b459-47e0-b2c8-6376d2918ead>™
| Privacy Policy <http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>.
 OHCHR Civil Society Section | UNOG-OHCHR | Geneva | 1211 | Switzerland



-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | accessnow.org
rightscon.org

@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140312/6a882538/attachment.htm>

From rishab.bailey at gmail.com  Thu Mar 13 06:16:04 2014
From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:46:04 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Society for Knowledge Commons contributions to
 NetMundial, 2014
Message-ID: <CANf7=M2Ofjn=C55a9jZze7CeKy2-G=KxX_B1kbFz1gk+tTPkZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

The Society for Knowledge Commons (India and Brasil), in addition to
endorsing / signing on to the Just Net coalition documents (available at
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-a-just-and-equitable-internet-for-all/110and
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164)
and a Brasilian civil society proposal (available at
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/submission-on-internet-governance-principles-by-the-articulation-of-brazilian-civil-society-organizations/276),
has submitted two documents to the NetMundial conference:

(i) Towards Reform of Global Internet Governance (available at
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-reform-of-global-internet-governance/240),
and
(ii) Towards Reform of Global Internet Technical Framework (available at
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-reform-of-global-internet-technical-framework/270
).

The documents are also attached to this mail.

Regards,
Rishab
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140313/c4f45e3b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KC - Principles for IG and Roadmap.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37649 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140313/c4f45e3b/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: KC - Technical Roadmap.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140313/c4f45e3b/attachment-0001.pdf>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Thu Mar 13 14:06:37 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:06:37 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Updates:  ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road
 to Sao Paulo, and Beyond, Singapore 21 March 2014
In-Reply-To: <6604A0E2-8DA3-4434-B62C-50D42383A1D8@gmail.com>
References: <6604A0E2-8DA3-4434-B62C-50D42383A1D8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BC73CDB8-F0A9-474F-8636-198EB063B22C@gmail.com>

Hi

> If interested, please see the below.  Apologies if you receive this from more than one mail list.

We are looking forward to the conference next Friday in Singapore.  I just wanted to pass along a few brief updates:

There have been several additions to the panelists since I sent out the notice below two weeks ago, with one more pending and soon to be resolved, http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/programme/

The program page above now has a link under each panel to  NETmundial and other contribution of relevance.  If one follows those links, you go to a page of background materials, some which are particularly relevant for the particular panels and could be drawn on in their respective conversations.

There are still some free seats in the large room ICANN reserved, so if you have any colleagues who will be coming early to Singapore and could be interested, please do direct them to the the conference page and registration page.

Best,

Bill

On Feb 26, 2014, at 3:41 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> If interested, please see the below.  Apologies if you receive this from more than one mail list.
> 
> ------
> 
> "ICANN and Global Internet Governance: The Road to São Paulo, and Beyond"
> 
> A conference to be held on Friday 21 March 2014 at the ICANN 49 meeting venue, the Raffles City Convention Centre, Singapore, in the Olivia Room, from 10:00 to 18:00.
> 
> Organized by the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, with the generous support of ICANN.
> 
> Logistical information, conference registration (important!) and the program are now online at http://www.ncuc.org/singapore2014/
> 
> We very much want this to be an inclusive cross-community dialogue, so we hope people will consider attending, either in person or remotely, and please do share this with potentially interested colleagues.  We are compiling some background materials related to the session topics for addition to the web site, and personal/organizational written inputs would be very much welcome.
> 
> 
> Overview of the meeting
> 
> 10:00-10:15     Welcome and Overview 
> 10:15-10:45     Update on the Sao Paulo Meeting
> 10:45-12:00     Panel 1 - Setting the Scene: Overview of Recent Agenda-Setting Initiatives
> 12:00-13:00     Lunch
> 13:00-14:15     Panel 2 - Internet Governance Principles
> 14:15-15:45     Panel 3 - Roadmap for Ecosystem Evolution: Globalization
> 15:45-16:00     Coffee break
> 16:00-17:30     Panel 4 - Roadmap for Ecosystem Evolution: Institutional Innovation
> 17:15-17:45     Keynote Assessment by Larry Strickling,
> 			Asst. Secretary of Commerce, Government of the United States
> 17:45-18:00     Concluding Observations
> 18:00-19:30     Reception with Fadi Chehadé, CEO of ICANN
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140313/4f11d9f6/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Mar 14 09:06:38 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:36:38 +0530
Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net>
References: <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5322FEDE.2060402@itforchange.net>


Dear Stephanie,

I read carefully your emails about multistakeholder participation in 
policy making. I agree with everything you say. Can it then be taken 
that we agree on multistakeholder participation in policy making? (More 
on agreement and different versions of multistakeholderism or MSism 
later.) In fact, your points on the need for non governmental 
'stakeholders' to have new formal venues of participation which cannot 
easily be influenced or controlled by policy makers is most important. 
Last year, I wrote a blog 
<http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy> 
where I called IGF kind of structures as representing version 3 of 
democracy, where new formal venues of participation are instituted that 
are not ad hoc, and do not depend on the sweet will of policy makers...

However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for 
instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several 
others.)They specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for 
instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil – in 
'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you on 
your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree to such equality of 
all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of 
specificity, of 'making actual public policy decisions'.

Do you think that this is a minor point, that need not be raised so 
strongly. Is the proposition of 'equality of all stakeholders' expressed 
in this fashion not a threat to democracy?

Please see IT for Change's submission to NetMundial titled - 'Is certain 
kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? Need to save 
NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred democratic lines 
<http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/is-certain-kind-of-multistakeholderism-a-post-democratic-ideology-need-to-save-netmundial-outcome-documents-from-crossing-some-sacred-democratic-lines/300>'.

I am engaging with you on this matter especially because you are in the 
High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Do expect 'equality of all 
stakeholders' meme to become a key sticking point as real negotiations 
begin on outcome documents for Brazil meeting.

Regards

parminder


On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In multilateral or normal government regulation mak
> ing, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed, stands to
>   be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
> Stephanie Perrin
> PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
> On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
>>
>> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
>>
>> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
>>
>> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
>> No civil servants, no civil society...
>> So who's able?
>> Corporate servants, corporate society..
>>
>> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
>>
>> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
>>
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> All of this is really going insane.
>>
>> Michael is so right
>>
>> JC
>>
>>
>> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>>>
>>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
>>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>>>
>>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>>>>
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net  [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org;bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>>>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>>>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>>>> embracing here.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>>>> public administration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>>>> representatives .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>>>>> what is happening now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>     internet governance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net  <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself:https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org<http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, seehttp://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> anrietteesterhuysenanriette at apc.org  executive director,
>>>>>>>>>> association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org  po box
>>>>>>>>>> 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> anrietteesterhuysenanriette at apc.org  executive director, association
>>>>>>> for progressive communicationswww.apc.org  po box 29755, melville
>>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140314/597448c7/attachment.htm>

From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 10:58:36 2014
From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 09:58:36 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] The current Internet is constructed like a Tin-Can and
 Kite-String Phone System.
Message-ID: <CAK41CSTECD_vt=uJ8iTEUM2AvPG9mbAy-wT0WMBgR6QWBmtpJA@mail.gmail.com>

The Internet is in serious trouble.
The current Internet is constructed like a Tin-Can and Kite-String Phone System.

Bob connects his TreeHouse to Carol's Cave....Carol connects her Cave
to Alice's Hut.
...All of Bob's PACKETS to ALICE must flow thru Carol.

Ted comes along, with big bucks; Adds Strings from his MountainTop to
Bob, Carol AND Alice.
Alice can now send some PACKETS to Bob via Carol and some via Ted.

Ted wants to dominate the market; he uses BGP to inform Alice that
Bob's packets should be sent to him....Bob does not know...

Carol decides to enter the "Security Business"; she records all of the
packets and sells copies to anyone who will pay.
Governments become very interested in Carol's services. Carol portrays
herself as a "Government Agent" at trade shows.

Ted exposes Carol as a "bad actor" and stops sending packets TO Carol
but continues to route anything FROM Carol.

Bob is happy, his TreeHouse is always connected and he chooses to
ignore the behaviors of Ted and Carol.
Alice is happy, her Hut sells connections to "visitors" who ALL APPEAR
to be Alice. Alice does not care, she is making money.

Visitors to Alice's Hut eventually decide they want their own
connections. Bob is not interested. Carol is too busy.
Ted starts taking on all visitors and they are lead to believe Ted is
a "Telephone Company".
Ted eventually CASHES OUT to a Traditional Telephone Company (TTC).
The TTC has a long history of ethical practices and government regulation.

Carol convinces the TTC that they MUST start sending her ALL traffic,
which Ted previously decided NOT TO SEND.
Carol NOW portrays herself as a "Government Agent" AND a TTC Partner
at trade shows.
Carol, who has no high-school education, buys herself a PhD from a
University in Japan and also fashions herself as an "Academic".

Bob decides he does not like the TTC. He starts talking to Alice about
his concerns. Carol eavesdrops on ALL of the conversations.
Bob starts selling connections to people around his TreeHouse who
mostly want to talk to each other.

Ted decides to RE-ENTER the business. Ted infiltrates Bob's friendly
little community. Ted uses BGP to BLACK-HOLE people he does not like.
Bob's maintenance costs go up as he tries to figure out WHO TED IS and
WHERE TED is Attacking NEXT....and WHY ? Ted is a RICH JERK - a Bully.

The Government enters the picture and passes laws that require Bob,
Carol and Alice to allow them to COPY all packets.
Carol is not happy because she can no longer "sell" what she is now
required to give away free.
The Government appoints the TTC to be in charge of all network monitoring.

Bob tells everyone that his TreeHouse is PRIVATE and all of the
community around his TreeHouse is PRIVATE.
Despite Bob's PUBLIC POSTURING - Bob is PAID to quietly copy all
packets and hand them to the Government. - Bob is uneasy.. but gives
in...

Carol CONTINUES to portray herself as a "Government Agent" at trade
shows. EVERYONE knows that is not true. They ignore her.
Carol starts using BGP to BLACK-HOLE traffic SHE DECIDES is not good.
Carol uses BGP to convice people she is a BIG PLAYER.
Carol flashes her PhD and BGP BLACK-HOLE Vigilante "Business" around
the industry - claiming to be a "Security Expert".

Ted SECRETLY contracts with the TTC to handle all of their Government
Monitoring tasks. Ted and Alice are very happy.
Ted uses his access to the TTC and Government records to FRAME people
he and Alice do not like.

Ted, Alice and Carol gang up and start telling everyone that Bob is a
"Bad Actor" because he encourages (sells) PRIVATE Networks.
...Bob is driven out of the business...he lives in his TreeHouse - Not
connected to anyone - He designs new secure networks not AVAILABLE to
TTC
Bob tells everyone NOT TO TELL CAROL ANYTHING...Alice wishes she was
not involved...Alice tells her visitors to go to the TTC for
service...

...on and on it goes...people around the edge - just want a NetWork vs
a NotWork...

Multi-Stake-Holder does NOT WORK...Unsavory Psychos and Jack-Booted
THUGS run YOUR Internet...Governments meddle...the TTC shrugs...

...The Intelligent People have WALKED AWAY....a LONG WAY AWAY...at
least they NOW know who to avoid...

The Internet is in serious trouble.
The current Internet is constructed like a Tin-Can and Kite-String
Phone System....

-- 
3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds
http://3DNB.COM
Login: ZOOM
Password: BOX

@Techno_CAT_r
http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Mar 14 12:11:05 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:41:05 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <53232A19.30805@itforchange.net>


On Monday 10 March 2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
> private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
> paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.

Hi Carlos,

We may differ on issues and principles here, but I assure you that there 
is no misunderstanding. Our position is based on considerable thinking.

What is entirely left to the private sector, what gets provided as a 
public or social good, and what gets closely regulated even though 
provided privately are decisions that societies taken on the basis of 
many considerations. What was earlier a private good can become a public 
good as times change. Prior to the industrial revolution, education was 
considered a rather private good - it was either a matter of some very 
exclusive privilege of the highest classes, or consisted of skills 
transferred within occupational groups like guilds. With the industrial 
revolution, many changes took place in social structures, in structure 
of family, work force and so on.... Soon later, education begun to see 
as seen as a kind of public good, and then as  a human right in the UN 
Declaration of Human Rights...

Sorry for the detour but, similar basic changes are taking place vis a 
vis the ongoing information/Internet revolution. One important element 
of this transformation are some new kinds of socio-technical platforms 
that mediated a huge swathe of social activities, which could span a 
whole sector - like global knowledge organising, instant media, general 
social networking, and so on. Such platforms have the character of 
natural monopolies - a fact that is proven. All this present a very new 
situation, and accordingly an assessment has to be made in public 
interest of the need and degree of regulation of such platforms. Also, 
whether some of these services also need to be provided as public goods, 
or at least proactive public support (including with funds)  given for 
building local and/ or non-profit alternatives. But the least that can 
certainly be said is that a completely unregulated commercial offering 
of these platforms, as huge global monopolies, and largely escaping 
regulation because of their global nature, coupled with extra-ordinary 
economic (and increasingly, political) might, is not not a sustainable 
situation. We can accept it now and take remedial measures, or do it 
after considerable social damage is done.

(In fact, as you say, since these services are free, they do not even 
constitute a commercial service agreement since no payment is made for 
them. Whereby we can also say that there can be no consumer rights vis a 
vis these services. Would you agree to such a proposition? )

All of which simply points to the fact that we are facing very new and 
unique situation in an increasingly Internet-mediated world. We may have 
to visit our policy and regulatory paradigms anew, and we should show 
the political openness to do so.

Now, we may still disagree on which layers of the Internet requirer 
regulation and which not, but I just wanted to clarify that our position 
is well thought out and not a result as a mis- understanding.

regards

parminder

>
> Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
> for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
> of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
> risk and will.
>
> Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
> the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
> can demand consumer and other rights.
>
> I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
> can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
> a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
> if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
>
> IMHO
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
>> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
>> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
>> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
>> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
>> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
>> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
>> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>
>>   Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
>> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
>> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
>> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
>> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
>> the country.
>>
>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
>> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
>> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
>> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
>> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
>> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
>> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
>> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
>> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
>> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
>> nearly $5 billion.
>>
>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
>> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
>> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
>> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
>> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
>> users and good for competition.”
>>
>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
>> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
>> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
>> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
>> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
>> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>>
>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
>> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
>> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
>> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
>> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>>
>> source -
>> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html


From avri at acm.org  Fri Mar 14 13:08:59 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:08:59 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Re: [] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <5322FEDE.2060402@itforchange.net>
References: <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net> <5322FEDE.2060402@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <532337AB.20703@acm.org>



On 14-Mar-14 09:06, parminder wrote:
> However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for
> instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several
> others.)They specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for
> instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil – in
> 'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you on
> your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree to such equality of
> all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of
> specificity, of 'making actual public policy decisions'.

With all due respect, you omit one consideration that is central to my 
submitted discussion on the equality of stakeholders, whether government 
or non-government

"When one starts to consider the responsibilities of each of these roles 
one finds that the responsibilities also vary over issues, time and are 
subject to the phase of a process."

http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/discussion-of-principles-related-to-stakeholder-roles-and-responsibilities/201

So yes, stakeholders, qua being stakeholders, are equal in my analysis. 
  But their roles vary according to issue, phase of discussion, process 
and many other features. Sometimes one stakeholder group holds the 
primary deciding responsibility and sometimes others do.  But all always 
have an equal right to be heard as part of the process.

I further suggest in my submissions that:

" As we move forward, we need to set aside time and effort to better 
understand and recognize the diversity and complexity of roles and 
responsibilities in Internet governance."

thanks

avri

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Mar 14 13:45:39 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:15:39 +0530
Subject: Fwd: Re: [] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <532337AB.20703@acm.org>
References: <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net> <5322FEDE.2060402@itforchange.net> <532337AB.20703@acm.org>
Message-ID: <53234043.7090404@itforchange.net>


On Friday 14 March 2014 10:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
> On 14-Mar-14 09:06, parminder wrote:
>> However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for
>> instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several
>> others.)They specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for
>> instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil – in
>> 'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you on
>> your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree to such equality of
>> all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of
>> specificity, of 'making actual public policy decisions'.
>
> With all due respect, you omit one consideration that is central to my 
> submitted discussion on the equality of stakeholders, whether 
> government or non-government
>
> "When one starts to consider the responsibilities of each of these 
> roles one finds that the responsibilities also vary over issues, time 
> and are subject to the phase of a process."
>
> http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/discussion-of-principles-related-to-stakeholder-roles-and-responsibilities/201 
>
>
> So yes, stakeholders, qua being stakeholders, are equal in my 
> analysis.  But their roles vary according to issue, phase of 
> discussion, process and many other features. Sometimes one stakeholder 
> group holds the primary deciding responsibility and sometimes others do.

In which case my question is specific, and deals with a particular 
'issue' and a particular 'phase of discussion/ process'...

The concerned issue or matter is 'public policy' and the phase is 
'actual decision making'.

Other than the fact that every term and meaning can forever be contested 
and argued about, I believe that both 'public policy' and 'decision 
making' have rather clear meaning in political space. And so, my 
original question was, and remains, "do you think that every stakeholder 
has an equal role in public policy related decision making"?


> But all always have an equal right to be heard as part of the process.

All people - if you want to call the stakeholders, well, fine - always 
have an equal right to be heard, there is no doubt about it. It is the 
very basic principle of justice. Where is the question. But right to be 
heard is not the same as right to make public policy decision nor of 
vetoing them - which is at the crux of many institutional processes for 
global Internet governance that have been submitted to the NetMundial 
process.

(BTW, Never could understand why not just say 'all people' rather than 
'all stakeholders', because stake has obviously to be self defined, and 
the act of showing desire to speak and participate is a self-statement 
of stake, and so we can as well say all people everywhere rather than 
stakeholders have a right - which becomes operational only if they 
exercise it, but whatever....)


>
> I further suggest in my submissions that:
>
> " As we move forward, we need to set aside time and effort to better 
> understand and recognize the diversity and complexity of roles and 
> responsibilities in Internet governance."

There is a political vacuum right now, which is being filled by dominant 
economic and political forces to shape the Internet as per their 
interests. Soon it will be too late as the socio-technical architecture 
of the Internet is set, and along with it some key contours of society's 
power relationships. The luxury of infinite time to think and react is 
not available to those who find themselves, or their constituencies, 
holding the short end of the stick, which keeps getting shorter..

parminder
>
> thanks
>
> avri


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Mar 14 16:43:55 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 20:43:55 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <144c1692b78.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca>
 <53232A19.30805@itforchange.net>,<144c1692b78.27e9.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <eb2fe16487024d8591811b11d6e81372@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Parminder, Suresh, friends,

My (too lengthy) comments on the cross-thread discussion of (democratic) multi-stakeholder processes; and alternatives in the present/next phase of (global) Internet governance are offered here.

My main point: all too often, we are leaving out of the discussion of global Internet public policy the contrast with the common practice - and most realistic alternative for detailed sector-specific regulation of global Internet public policy matters - which is industry self-regulation. 

The Milton/Brenden DNSA proposal could be seen as proposing to help the industry, and the world, by establishing a narrowly targetted process insulated from politics, and specifically removed from NTIA oversight.

That could be a sign that the global Internet is growing up and doesn't need baby-sitting as it once did. So to be clear I have nothing against industry self-regulation where it is an effective alternative, including in global Internet governance arenas.

I do not however wish to lose the default preference for truly multi-stakeholder processes wherever they might be established, since they are preferrable in principle.

So  yes 'Industry-led' ICANN could be seen as just another industry self-regulatory body. As direct democracy was tried and found wanting in the very early ICANN days for a global organization - cough Karl Auerbach as the fall guy starred in that show - it appears the best we can hope for is multistakeholder, including democratically elected governments. Since a  classic democratic form involving electoral representation of all us Internet users and creators on a global scale is not -yet? - realistically on the table. 

Therefore, I argue that we live in the best of all possible worlds from a multi-stakeholder Internet governance view, and civil society should only consent to outcomes in Brazil and beyond that further support that model as - the best of all possible alternatives - in the present day and age.

Seriously.  

What we want to ensure is that we multi-stakeholders do not lose the opportunity (to be fooled??) into helping keep the open global Internet up and operating. Since honestly the alternative is to leave it to industry, with government oversight,and the public just invited to leave comments and complaints. THEN the Internet stagnates and becomes just the global multinational tool many of us oppose.

Since the realistic alternative is not global Internet public policy made by (democratic) governments in ascendance as you might prefer, but unfettered Industry (self-) regulation which can expose us all to - probably - worse outcomes and certainly less opportunities for 90% of us on this list to have a say.  (Which is not to say the essentially industry self-regulatory/operating structure of DNSA is not preferrable to leaving NTIA in charge; but that is a discussion for another email.)

Now to the academic/historical justification for those statements:

The Internet "Corporation"  might be conceived of as just a variation on sector-specific regulatory/governance approaches dating back to the midieval guilds - think Hanseatic League - and even earlier times in other cultures.

Not that it was all bad; I understand the Hanseatic League's salt cod was the best. : )  

Essentially, multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes are just a variation on that age-old regulatory theme, with greater transparency and openness to civil society one of its key advantages. 

Multi-stakeholder is not an alternative to democracy, it is a participatory democracy/civil society AND government(s) AND industry self-regulatory toolkit to dupe lots of volunteers to spend countless hours doing - the public good. 

Amongst those volunteers, there are of course many whose day job employers have substantial financial interests in the matters being regulated.  Again, like any industry self-regulatory process, the fact that the folks in the room have various stakes in the game, is a feature, not a bug.

That we all can participate as stakeholders is also a feature and not a bug.  

Yes of course global Internet public policy generally speaking would be - better done in the present era if for example the ITU, or UNCSTD, could more readily shake the historical shackles of a 19th and 20th century treaty organizations.  But if it were easy to really open up the ITU it would have happened already, some of us have been working on it for 3 decades now.

So, if true global IGO's just can't handle, and can't motivate the fools I mean the many many thousands of volunteers which their structures automatically disrespect and treat like midieval serfs who should not be in the room and should certainly not speak if not spoken to - that just won't do to motivate the folks participating in all kinds of global Internet governance processes that keeps the net up and growing. 

Therefore, the present preference for multi-stakeholder processes ideally should be endorsed by everyone as the #1 main outcome of Brazil.

(Yeah some agreement on general principles and endorsement of the Internet Rights and Principles Charter as THE 'Magna' Carta' of our era would be nice; but most important really is an agreement on - processes -  so in that Fadi got it right in framing the meeting.)   

I elaborate (even further) below.

Industry self-regulatory practices continue in specific sectors; for example for obvious reasons - that's where the money/temptation to rip off customers and business partners is - regulating finance involves more regulators than just the 5 federal government regulators involved in oversight of the 'Volcker Rule' in the US. 

As an illustration, in the US financial industry, FINRA regulates broker-dealers. They follow certain best practices:

"Comments will be posted online for all Regulatory Notices that seek comment on a proposal. Posting comments online will make it easier for the public to access and review submissions, and will improve the efficiency with which FINRA maintains, reviews and makes available the comments it receives. Generally, comments will be posted on the FINRA website as they are received." (see: http://www.finra.org/AboutFINRA/) FINRA is authorized by the US Congress but is an industry-organized non-profit. Financial brokers in other nations may be similarly policed by their peers. Obviously, FINRA did not prevent the global finanical melt-down of 2008; but then neither did the US or other government regulatory bodies. And following that meltdown, the US Congress passed new legislation, but again that did not obviate the need for FINRA. FINRA is far from perfect, as brokers or their clients may tell you over drinks; but it more or less works.

Leaving to doctors, lawyers and universities the details of their professional (re-)accreditation is perhaps the most common of the industry/professional self-regulatory practices I am contrasting multi-stakeholder with. Of course there are procedures for patients to complain, and ripped-off investors, and parents and students, that is kind of the point. 

But because of the stakes - money and right to practice - none of these procedures are exactly welcoming to new participants offering to help.

For Internet governance, if you want to try to crack the inter-networking code(s), noone's stopping you - in fact IETF folks will welcome clever newbies/fools who they can off-load work to.

So if we recognize its origins in Internet governance out of IETF necessity and related activities which involved,also of necessity, multiple parties - a more-open, more-transparent  'we do not recognize kings just running code' world we are all now living in:
 
and note the DoC's Green Paper tagline of 'industry-led'; 

we can at least suggest to Parminder that there are far worse alternatives than endorsement of the multi-stakeholder model as the global default for Internet governance, as the number one outcome of Brazil.

In its next phase, multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes clearly have key roles to play, since there are just so many stakeholders, including interested individuals, who might have a better idea on how to do (new) things.

Since we have not been here before. 

Whether those newbies are dipping their intellectual toe into IETF on inter-networking standards; or to other parts of ICANN for other matters, or  to Milton and Brendren's new baby DNSA, it is clear that a lot of what we are talking about is too fast-moving/just wouldn't work if burdened with traditional intergovernmental oversight. 

Anyway, to be frank and realistic, for most of the Internet Governance processes we are talking about and especially those which have international impact, multi-stakeholder is a more inclusive, but also a more flexible and responsive, participatory, self-regulatory, model than FINRA.  

So in other words, and to finally be semi-succinct, if multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes are thought of as the variation on the age-old industry-self-regulatory theme which they are; personally I prefer multi-stakeholder as more inclusive of civil society and individual interests, whether yes the 'guild' of IPR lawyers/interests are also hanging around ICANN, as they have been doing since before its founding. At least we the people can get in the room whether physically or virtually as well, with a right to speak as equals.

Which is Avri's key point. 

And to now conclude, all that is orthoganal to market regulation of firms (cough the Google example) in dominant positions, for which I would not advocate self-regulation, or multi-stakeholder processes, but good old-fashioned governmental competition policy regulation of firms suspected of abusing dominant positions, as in the present government inquiries in India and the EU.   A future global markets authority may be a desirable thing but more plausible is the Indian regulators, and the Chinese, also taking their seats at the big boys table with US and EU authorities, and talking amongst themselves. But that is beyond the scope of what we can reach any level of consensus on in a month, so...let's focus on the targets we might hit.  And in that area of global (and national) Internet public policy, I fully agree with you that governments must have the final authority, as Google can't be asked to police itself given the capitalist imperative. 

But for Brazil, and the broader Internet global public policy agenda circa 2014, the fact that information and telecommunication industries exhibit winner-take-all economics, whether at national or global scale, is just a fact and not something we can develop a coherent new global public policy for. In the next 30 days.  I humbly suggest. 

My...25 cents.

Lee


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Mar 14 17:44:41 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:44:41 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] against all odds
Message-ID: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>



http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr

More to follow I guess.

Jeanette

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Sun Mar  2 22:35:30 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 19:35:30 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] LIVE-STREAM - RightsCon 2014
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcq4jB4pAWqagFueP_9u-R_jP-GpGG6+aojBTZrf-2qcA@mail.gmail.com>

RightsCon live - info below

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Access Now <access at accessnow.org>
Date: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:46 PM
Subject: RightsCon 2014 Ready to Launch!
To: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>


   <https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f20/735869621/VEsH/>
 *Be a part of Access' premier global summit on tech and human rights! Tune
in to the RIghtsCon livestream, and join the conversation on your favorite
social media platform.*<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f23/735869621/VEsE/>

<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f23/735869621/VEsF/>

,

After months of planning and preparing, we're ready to kick off *RightsCon
Silicon Valley 2014
<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f22/735869621/VEsC/>*,
the premier gathering of tech policy leaders, entrepreneurs, and digital
rights defenders from around the world. I'm in awe of the amazing lineup of
speakers and experts, and we want to make sure you have access to them too!

Starting tomorrow, *RightsCon* participants will spend three days exploring
the progress and challenges at the intersection of human rights and new
technologies. The discussions will be all about building an internet that
puts users at the center, and remains open and free for future generations
-- and that's why we're committed to making sure you can take part in
*RightsCon*, either in person or online.

*Join us at RightsCon from anywhere: Watch our
livestream!*<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f23/735869621/VEsD/>

*RightsCon is dedicated to future-proofing human rights.* We're going to be
tackling the most difficult issues of the day, and seeking a path forward.
If you can, we want you to join us in person in San Francisco. But if you
can't make it in person, it doesn't mean you can't still be a part of
RightsCon!

Things kick off tomorrow (Monday) at 1pm PST. Here are some of the ways you
can participate at RightsCon without getting out of your pajamas:

   - *Watch the stream* online on
Youtube<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f5d/735869621/VEsA/>,
   Facebook<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f5c/735869621/VEsB/>,
   or on Google+<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f5f/735869621/VEsO/>
   - *Follow the conversation *with our live blogs and social media updates
   - *Join in* via Twitter
#rightscon<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f5e/735869621/VEsP/>or
   @accessnow<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f59/735869621/VEsHBQ/>,
   or on Google+ to comment and ask questions.

*Check out what's happening: Watch the livestream!
<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f23/735869621/VEsHBA/>*

*RightsCon* is the only conference dedicated to helping companies,
governments, and civil society address the challenges -- and opportunities
-- of tech and human rights. And it wouldn't be possible without the
support of Access community members like you.

Thank you,

Brett Solomon
Executive Director, Access


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

*Access defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the
world. By combining tech-driven policy, user engagement, and direct
technical support, we fight for open and secure communications for all. To
help protect the internet around the world, you can donate to Access
<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f58/735869621/VEsHBw/>.
To
reply, please email info at accessnow.org <info at accessnow.org>. **To
unsubscribe, go to: **https://www.accessnow.org/unsubscribe
<https://www.accessnow.org/page/m/3717cf21/13aebe8c/70adffaf/1de12f5b/735869621/VEsHBg/>*



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140302/280bd01e/attachment.htm>

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 17:49:58 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 02:49:58 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtOENgvAku__q_89ARyp43+dd5-vGG4yYoqKRxq1FMWoBQ@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting....rumours or reality, time will tell, what will be the
governance mechanism, that again will be much of the debate throughout
the next few months...relinquishing control but how and in to what new
form of rules and principles are the challenges....

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>
> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
>
> More to follow I guess.
>
> Jeanette
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 17:50:04 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:50:04 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] U.S. to Give Up Oversight of Web Policymaking Body
Message-ID: <13B57C49-9287-4009-AD55-8B61C575BEB1@gmail.com>

- http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303546204579439653103639452.html



Sent from my iPhone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140314/8f458439/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Fri Mar 14 17:54:57 2014
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:54:57 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] US announces it will give up control of the internet
Message-ID: <CF492AE4.15D65%andrew@gp-digital.org>


http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140314/3a2ab5c2/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Mar 14 17:56:38 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:56:38 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu>

And here comes the update:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.


Am 14.03.14 22:44, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann:
>
>
> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
>
> More to follow I guess.
>
> Jeanette

From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 18:05:18 2014
From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:05:18 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] =?US-ASCII?Q?=23BREAKING_USA_=23dotDUMPS_=2EDUMPS_=23I?=
 =?US-ASCII?Q?CANN_=23IANA_http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/press-release/2?=
 =?US-ASCII?Q?014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-nam?=
 =?US-ASCII?Q?e-functions_=2E=2E=2E_=23FirstNET_is_NOW_one_of_the_=23Crown?=
 =?US-ASCII?Q?Jewels_+_=23COMNET_=23DNSD_-_=23ISOC_Shrugs?=
Message-ID: <CAK41CSTapSRqoe4N8DXk4i0av7NMJJ-Jm_9chGd_+irQN=6+EQ@mail.gmail.com>

#BREAKING USA #dotDUMPS .DUMPS #ICANN #IANA
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
... #FirstNET is NOW one of the #CrownJewels + #COMNET #DNSD - #ISOC
Shrugs

NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions

Topics:

ICANN
Domain Name System

Printer-friendly version
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 14, 2014
News Media Contact:
NTIA, Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002, press at ntia.doc.gov


WASHINGTON - To support and enhance the multistakeholder model of
Internet policymaking and governance, the U.S. Commerce Department's
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
today announces its intent to transition key Internet domain name
functions to the global multistakeholder community.  As the first
step, NTIA is asking the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal
to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of
the Internet's domain name system (DNS).

NTIA's responsibility includes the procedural role of administering
changes to the authoritative root zone file - the database containing
the lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains - as well as
serving as the historic steward of the DNS.  NTIA currently contracts
with ICANN to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
functions and has a Cooperative Agreement with Verisign under which it
performs related root zone management functions.  Transitioning NTIA
out of its role marks the final phase of the privatization of the DNS
as outlined by the U.S. Government in 1997.

"The timing is right to start the transition process," said Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E.
Strickling.  "We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across
the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition
plan."

ICANN is uniquely positioned, as both the current IANA functions
contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS, as the appropriate
party to convene the multistakeholder process to develop the
transition plan.  NTIA has informed ICANN that it expects that in the
development of the proposal, ICANN will work collaboratively with the
directly affected parties, including the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet
Society (ISOC), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), top level
domain name operators, VeriSign, and other interested global
stakeholders.

NTIA has communicated to ICANN that the transition proposal must have
broad community support and address the following four principles:

Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
the IANA services; and,
Maintain the openness of the Internet.

Consistent with the clear policy expressed in bipartisan resolutions
of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives (S.Con.Res.50 and
H.Con.Res.127), which affirmed the United States support for the
multistakeholder model of Internet governance, NTIA will not accept a
proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an
inter-governmental organization solution.


From renata at webfoundation.org  Fri Mar 14 18:07:40 2014
From: renata at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:07:40 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
	<53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>

Friday night. Interesting timing.
On 14 Mar 2014 22:56, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> And here comes the update:
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-
> intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
>
>
> Am 14.03.14 22:44, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann:
>
>>
>>
>> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
>>
>> More to follow I guess.
>>
>> Jeanette
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140314/54b1b255/attachment.htm>

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 18:23:22 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:23:22 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
	<53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu>
	<CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtMNCEiMTYfkW=7wx3dCe+_J897WJAdgAQgZiGGE-bFqTw@mail.gmail.com>

This is actually an opportunity for IGC and Best Bits to prepare and
forward a statement with suggestion of possible models for governance
of such a decentralization. Be rest assured that all this is happening
just in time for the NetMundial in Brazil. I wouldn't waste such an
opportunity to ensure that our voice is heard well from this point
forward and all the forums thereof.

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> Friday night. Interesting timing.
>
> On 14 Mar 2014 22:56, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>>
>> And here comes the update:
>>
>>
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
>>
>>
>> Am 14.03.14 22:44, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
>>>
>>> More to follow I guess.
>>>
>>> Jeanette
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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



-- 
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 mars.techno.cat at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 18:41:20 2014
From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:41:20 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] #ICANN NOW has to TRY to Compete with Serious #DNS #DNSD
 Market Forces
Message-ID: <CAK41CSRMXwGR78T3VDtjNfmU5=p0te+Zh3Ek7Ku2rjeWcFmNAg@mail.gmail.com>

#ICANN NOW has to TRY to Compete with Serious #DNS #DNSD Market Forces
- http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
... WITHOUT UNCLE SAM's #NTIA CLOUT - enter #FTC
...
ICANN NOW has to TRY to Compete
...
Billions of dollars are being invested to make sure investor's
interests are protected FROM the ICANN ISOC IETF IANA Regime...
...
Uncle Sam (NTIA) will no longer be part of ICANN's Tag Team in the Ring
...in other words....NTIA is no longer a Stooge expected to nod USA approval at
the ridiculous I* processes and policies...
...
...in the USA....FREE Market Forces should easily be able to end the
ICANN era...

BTW....any domainer that has not "protected" what they think are
Their.Domains...had better consider the TWISTER headed their way...

http:// TWISTER. NET. CO

-- 
3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds
http://3DNB.COM
Login: ZOOM
Password: BOX

@Techno_CAT_r
http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r

From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 18:57:53 2014
From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:57:53 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization
 Progress
Message-ID: <CAK41CSS2V8i5YKPcUDpAQApVjfa+1qk2ho0_a5xjDQjMohD70g@mail.gmail.com>

...does anyone think these people just fell into the same Gravy
Boat...by chance?

http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalization-progress

14 March 2014

Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress

The leaders of the Internet technical organizations responsible for
coordination of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD
ROs, ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the US Government's announcement
of the suggested changes related to the IANA functions contract.

The roles on policy development processes of the Internet technical
organizations and ICANN's role as administrator of the IANA functions,
remain unchanged.

The transition of the US Government stewardship has been envisaged
since the early days of IANA functions contract. This transition is
now feasible due to the maturity of the Internet technical
organizations involved in performing their respective roles related to
the IANA functions, and ICANN will facilitate a global,
multi-stakeholder process to plan for the transition.

The strength and stability of the IANA functions within the above
organizations (which make up the Internet technical community) are
critical to the operation of the Internet. The processes around the
IANA functions have always been carefully specified in the communities
that our organizations represent. The IANA functions are faithfully
administered by ICANN. We are committed to continuing our proven,
community-driven processes as we engage in this transition. Our
communities are already considering proposals to progress the
transition.

Our organizations are committed to open and transparent
multi-stakeholder processes. We are also committed to further
strengthening our processes and agreements related to the IANA
functions, and to building on the existing organizations and their
roles. The Internet technical community is strong enough to continue
its role, while assuming the stewardship function as it transitions
from the US Government.

Participating Leaders

Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO African Network Information Center (AFRINIC)
Barrack Otieno, Manager, The African Top Level Domains Organization (AFTLD)
Paul Wilson, Director General Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
Don Hollander, General Manager Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Association (APTLD)
John Curran, CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Peter Van Roste, General Manager, Council for European National Top
Level Domain Registries (CENTR)
Russ Housley, Chair Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
Fadi Chehadé, President and CEO Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Jari Arkko, Chair Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Kathy Brown, President and CEO Internet Society (ISOC)
Raúl Echeberría, CEO Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses
Registry (LACNIC)
Carolina Aguerre, General Manager, Latin American and Caribbean TLD
Association (LACTLD)
Axel Pawlik, Managing Director Réseaux IP Européens Network
Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC)
Jeff Jaffe, CEO World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)



-- 
3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds
http://3DNB.COM
Login: ZOOM
Password: BOX

@Techno_CAT_r
http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r

From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 19:20:52 2014
From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:20:52 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Surprise Surprise....Synchronized Press Releases...
Message-ID: <CAK41CSRfbVJ2OdMsFU_J0iOSzcpq0SEOPUzAabbndSVWZY7Hgg@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86792.html

http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2014-2/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalization-progress/

-- 
3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds
http://3DNB.COM
Login: ZOOM
Password: BOX

@Techno_CAT_r
http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue Mar  4 15:00:34 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 04:00:34 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at
 bestbits.net
Message-ID: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>

Dear all,

With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting.  These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face review this week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of the institutional submission) by those of you who are present at RightsCon in San Francisco.

The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for endorsement separately, are:

Internet governance principles, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem – institutional mechanisms, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem – ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/

These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to read the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree with them, of course), and then to spread the word through social media, email or word of mouth.

Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your endorsement on each of the submissions soon.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/6a1ac65e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/6a1ac65e/attachment.sig>

From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 19:48:56 2014
From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:48:56 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] ICANN Board Chair reacts to US Government plan to
 relinquish key Internet stewardship
Message-ID: <CAK41CSQKXm_0ZaX2ZAJjkKqQ3cp8WKf_frD_9=e166cFfeewiQ@mail.gmail.com>

http://youtu.be/eCvtvVZyjLA

...time for the rest of the world to "Step UP"....???
...
or....the reality is that poised players are FINALLY ready to COMPETE with ICANN
...and the USA is stepping out of the RING...NTIA will watch from the
cheap seats...

-- 
3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds
http://3DNB.COM
Login: ZOOM
Password: BOX

@Techno_CAT_r
http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r

From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 20:06:17 2014
From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:06:17 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] ICANN unveils their GAME.PLAN...???
Message-ID: <CAK41CSSaccznRvib5Y7VHFouw1vZ+e8pGAu6Ros3w=HqxvipMQ@mail.gmail.com>

ICANN unveils their GAME.PLAN....???...or their first "deception" ?

http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14mar14-en.pdf

...the competition for ICANN IANA will of course NOT be showing any cards...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack,
we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive;
when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when
far away, we must make him believe we are near."

-- 
3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds
http://3DNB.COM
Login: ZOOM
Password: BOX

@Techno_CAT_r
http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Sat Mar  8 16:35:38 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 16:35:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org> <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net> <53199B28.2090701@apc.org> <531AB97F.8080908@itforchange.net> <531AC0CA.3010001@itforchange.net> <531B0283.60303@wzb.eu> <16fc01cf3ad8$f26a3f70$d73ebe50$@gmail.com> <531B7907.8060601@wzb.eu> <05A67F32-4759-43F8-BBBF-F1A5241CA6F3@theglobaljournal.net>
Message-ID: <AAA7CE00-62CE-41C4-B24E-55D48071D331@mail.utoronto.ca>

If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In multilateral or normal government regulation making, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed, stands to be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
Stephanie Perrin
PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:

> Jeanette,
> 
> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying, 
> 
> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
> 
> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
> 
> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
> No civil servants, no civil society...
> So who's able?
> Corporate servants, corporate society..
> 
> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
> 
> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
> 
> Jeanette,
> 
> All of this is really going insane.
> 
> Michael is so right
> 
> JC
> 
> 
> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> 
>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>> 
>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>> 
>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
>> 
>> jeanette
>> 
>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>>> 
>>> M
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>> 
>>> jeanette
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>>> 
>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>>> embracing here.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>>> public administration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>>> representatives .
>>>>> 
>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>>>> what is happening now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>    Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>    the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>    society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>    should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>    internet governance.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director,
>>>>>>>>> association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box
>>>>>>>>> 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org executive director, association
>>>>>> for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville
>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder.js at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 09:05:20 2014
From: parminder.js at gmail.com (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 18:35:20 +0530
Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net>
References: <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5322FE90.1000304@gmail.com>



Dear Stephanie,

I read carefully your emails about multistakeholder participation in 
policy making. I agree with everything you say. Can it then be taken 
that we agree on multistakeholder participation in policy making? (More 
on agreement and different versions of multistakeholderism or MSism 
later.) In fact, your points on the need for non governmental 
'stakeholders' to have new formal venues of participation which cannot 
easily be influenced or controlled by policy makers is most important. 
Last year, I wrote a blog 
<http://itforchange.net/Param_Jan2013_The_institution_of_Internet_Governance_Forums_and_the_evolution_of_democracy> 
where I called IGF kind of structures as representing version 3 of 
democracy, where new formal venues of participation are instituted that 
are not ad hoc, and do not depend on the sweet will of policy makers...

However, this is not what many proponents of MSism stop at. (See for 
instance Avri's submissions to NetMundial process, and several 
others.)They specifically want equal role for all stakeholders – for 
instance, equal role for Google and the government of Brazil – in 
'making actual public policy decisions'. So, having agreed with you on 
your formulations, may I ask you whether you agree to such equality of 
all stakeholders – in terms, sorry, but need to repeat for the sake of 
specificity, of 'making actual public policy decisions'.

Do you think that this is a minor point, that need not be raised so 
strongly. Is the proposition of 'equality of all stakeholders' expressed 
in this fashion not a threat to democracy?

Please see IT for Change's submission to NetMundial titled - 'Is certain 
kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? Need to save 
NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred democratic lines 
<http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/is-certain-kind-of-multistakeholderism-a-post-democratic-ideology-need-to-save-netmundial-outcome-documents-from-crossing-some-sacred-democratic-lines/300>'.

I am engaging with you on this matter especially because you are in the 
High Level Committee for the Brazil meeting. Do expect 'equality of all 
stakeholders' meme to become a key sticking point as real negotiations 
begin on outcome documents for Brazil meeting.

Regards

parminder


On Sunday 09 March 2014 03:05 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> If I may jump in and respond, having been a civil servant for 30 years...we are not stupid.  One does need inside information to fully understand the impact of regulation.  One of the bigger problems in government these days is complexity, coupled with the speed of change.  Coming up with, lets say, (in order to get away from pharma for a moment) agricultural regulations, you need to consult industry, farmers, consumers, shippers, anti-poverty activists, environmental experts,  etc.  You need to understand world markets and world impacts.  You do not, as public servants, have this knowledge fall down on scrolls from heaven. Impact assessment of your proposed regulation has to come from the stakeholders, hopefully by talking to them or running public calls for comment.  Now here is where multi-stakeholderism has merit over multilateralism.  In true, bottom-up multistakeholderism, if you want to contribute, you can.  In multilateral or normal government regulation mak
> ing, the involvement of all stakeholders can vary enormously, from fully transparent democratic calls for involvement, to nothing.  Some countries or even policy areas within government consult only with industry associations, which may favour big players.  Consumer and human rights advocates may or may not be consulted, and if they are they are sometimes hand picked.  This is documented in political science literature.   My point is that in good multi-stakeholder practice, the governing or rule-making party has less control of the outcome, because participation is more democratic.   There will always be the issue of who has the time, money, and training to provide input, to go to the meetings, etc., but the process is harder for big players to manipulate and hopefully is more fair and equitable.  When you multiply that over the many countries that have a stake in Internet governance (i.e. all of them) then it seems to me very clear that multi-stakeholderism, however flawed, stands to
>   be a more open and inclusive process.  I would hope that civil society would see fit to support it and make it better.
> Stephanie Perrin
> PS if I may, as a newcomer to this list....life is complicated, there are indeed mostly grey areas.  It would be great if we could come up with positive proposals for how to make these systems work better, rather than argue.  I would repeat my proposal that doing broad-based impact assessment on all Internet governance decisions, with comment periods, might help mitigate some of the dissatisfaction with results, and improve learning.
> On 2014-03-08, at 3:57 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote:
>
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> The difficulty lies on those grey zones you are enjoying,
>>
>> Is your experience of civil servants - unable to prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise - large enough for coming to conclusion that without lobbyists, and big corps, civil servants are not able to accomplish their task? Have you got any documentation on this? Or is this something that is very well known, but undocumented for some reasons? And, if any civil servants on the list, do you agree with that understanding of civil servants poor capacities? Maybe we should ask them outside of these governance and Best bits listing?
>>
>> On top of civil servants, you add that civil society has no capacity to counterbalance big corps...
>>
>> At the end of the day, who has true capacity in your multistakeholder prism?
>> No civil servants, no civil society...
>> So who's able?
>> Corporate servants, corporate society..
>>
>> With such a vision, I doubt you believe in multistakeholderism: why do you bother with civil servants and civil society?
>>
>> All of that sounds really like non sense. But maybe I need to join a multistakholder meeting, so to understand more of the real life.
>>
>> Jeanette,
>>
>> All of this is really going insane.
>>
>> Michael is so right
>>
>> JC
>>
>>
>> Le 8 mars 2014 à 21:09, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>>> I don't know how you can read this out of my comment.
>>>
>>> In my experience, parliaments and ministries are unable prepare legislation without drawing on external expertise. It is an illusion to think that legislation could take place as an autonomous process without external influence.
>>> There is also nothing dubious about lobbying as such. It has been around since parliaments have lobbies and most lobbyists are officially accredited with parliaments. What is problematic is that state officials often acquire the problem perceptions and mindsets of the industies they regulate.
>>>
>>> Another problem I see is that civil society won't have the capacity to intervene as much as it should to counter-balance the impact of commercial lobbying.
>>>
>>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Am 08.03.14 15:16, schrieb michael gurstein:
>>>> So it is your position that what up to this point has been ethically dubious and in some cases downright illegal i.e. the subverting (errr.. "shaping") of public policy processes to support private interests, not only legal but compulsory?
>>>>
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net  [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann
>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:44 AM
>>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org;bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Conversely, since there is considerable interest here in
>>>>> multistakeholder policy making, even at national levels, would you
>>>>> support pharma companies, for instance, sitting in bodies making -
>>>>> actually making - health and drug policies, and big publishers in
>>>>> education policy making, and so on...
>>>> The problem is that the pharmaceutical companies have been doing this for decades - but behind closed doors. National legislation is not done without consulting with industries affected. Sometimes, particularly on the EU level, they even write the draft legislation. Multistakeholder offers the chance to broaden the consulation process and bring this process in the open daylight so that everybody can see what has been going on in secret.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If not, what is the essential difference, and who decides the 'difference'?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course state's extra-ordinary interest to control the Internet may
>>>>> be discussed here, but the state has the same kind of desire to
>>>>> control, for instance, the education system. Does it give enough basis
>>>>> for multistakeholder policy making in the education at the national level?
>>>>> Be fore-warned, that is the model of policy making that we are
>>>>> embracing here.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from the difference between public policies and technical
>>>>>> decisions, is also the difference between original public policy
>>>>>> authority and delegated authority.  These are concepts and ideas that
>>>>>> are rather well worked out in the texts of political science and
>>>>>> public administration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A public policy function is sovereign in the sense of not being
>>>>>> subject to a higher authority (judicial review being a different
>>>>>> matter) and is accompanied with legitimate coercive power for
>>>>>> enforcement. Such power only lies with elected representatives in
>>>>>> democracies. It cannot, for instance, be exercised by business
>>>>>> representatives .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (At the global level, such sovereignty is exercised in a complex
>>>>>> manner  whereby national legislatures often need to ratify
>>>>>> international treaties, and while many of such treaties carry
>>>>>> enforcement elements, the manner of their national application remain
>>>>>> in a somewhat complex interplay with national political systems. But
>>>>>> this system of global public policies still works.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As such CGI.Br does not and cannot consitutionally undertake public
>>>>>> policy function. Happy to hear counter-arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a huge problem with deforming the clear political
>>>>>> definitions regarding public policy  etc and then find entry points
>>>>>> for big business to exercise formal political power..... Once such a
>>>>>> role is established on some areas, then this power migrates upwards
>>>>>> to cover all areas of our social and political existence. This is
>>>>>> what is happening now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do note that the currently fashionable meme of  'equal footing' in
>>>>>> public policy functions does not ever circumscribe the areas where
>>>>>> big business can thus exercise formal political power, and where it
>>>>>> cannot. The multistakeholder policy making models, for instance the
>>>>>> one offered by Jeremy, applies to all areas of Internet policies at
>>>>>> the global level. Soon, it will be areas of policy in any sector at
>>>>>> the global level. Such efforts are of course already afoot. And then
>>>>>> gradually this models is brought to the national levels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remain worried how few here see and fear the headlong plunge into a
>>>>>> neoliberal post-democratic system that we may be taking, and in fact
>>>>>> contributing so strongly to...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal,
>>>>>>> but it is multi-stakeholder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Government has more positions which is something I have heard some
>>>>>>> Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that
>>>>>>> different parts of government is represented which his important.
>>>>>>> Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how
>>>>>>> public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and
>>>>>>> go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or
>>>>>>> without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and
>>>>>>> approving/rejecting'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional
>>>>>>> models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be
>>>>>>> introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it
>>>>>>> does. But we should also propose and promote new models where
>>>>>>> policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You clarify the difference between two positions very well..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
>>>>>>>> statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
>>>>>>>> non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
>>>>>>>> footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
>>>>>>>> *//*policies*//*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> */Fine. There is no room for confusion now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
>>>>>>>> making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
>>>>>>>> accompanying statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
>>>>>>>> Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
>>>>>>>> on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
>>>>>>>> out withdrawn. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
>>>>>>>>> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>     society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>     internet governance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>> processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
>>>>>>>>> APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
>>>>>>>>> processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
>>>>>>>>> To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
>>>>>>>>> documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
>>>>>>>>> internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
>>>>>>>>> into NetMundial, including human rights.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
>>>>>>>>> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
>>>>>>>>> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
>>>>>>>>> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
>>>>>>>>> relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
>>>>>>>>> doing so; and
>>>>>>>>> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
>>>>>>>>> therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
>>>>>>>>> role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
>>>>>>>>> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
>>>>>>>>> which is relevant to internet governance
>>>>>>>>> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
>>>>>>>>> parity with each other when doing so;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
>>>>>>>>> which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
>>>>>>>>> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
>>>>>>>>> participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>> Joy
>>>>>>>>> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
>>>>>>>>>> the use of 'multilateral'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>>>>>>>>>> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>>>>>>>>>> society and international organisations. No single government
>>>>>>>>>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>>>>>>>>>> internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
>>>>>>>>>> dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
>>>>>>>>>> and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>>> defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
>>>>>>>>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>>>>>>>>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
>>>>>>>>>> role in relation to international internet governance."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
>>>>>>>>>> term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
>>>>>>>>>> meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
>>>>>>>>>> that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
>>>>>>>>>> involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
>>>>>>>>>> context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <parminder at itforchange.net  <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please address this point specifically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> read for yourself:https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
>>>>>>>>>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
>>>>>>>>>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
>>>>>>>>>>>> non gov actors....
>>>>>>>>>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
>>>>>>>>>>> this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
>>>>>>>>>>> multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
>>>>>>>>>>> governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
>>>>>>>>>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
>>>>>>>>>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
>>>>>>>>>>> principle inspirations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
>>>>>>>>>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
>>>>>>>>>>> CoE principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>>>>>>>>>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
>>>>>>>>>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>>>>>>>>>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>>>>>>>>>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
>>>>>>>>>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
>>>>>>>>>>> transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
>>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
>>>>>>>>>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
>>>>>>>>>>> to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
>>>>>>>>>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
>>>>>>>>>>> me to stay away from this doc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
>>>>>>>>>>> to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
>>>>>>>>>>> thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
>>>>>>>>>>> new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
>>>>>>>>>>> of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
>>>>>>>>>>> to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
>>>>>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
>>>>>>>>>>> equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
>>>>>>>>>>> the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
>>>>>>>>>>> survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
>>>>>>>>>>> see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
>>>>>>>>>>> prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
>>>>>>>>>>> get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
>>>>>>>>>>>> got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
>>>>>>>>>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
>>>>>>>>>>>> this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the key point, and not skirt it...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>>>>>>>>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the people, possess public authority including internet-related
>>>>>>>>>>>> public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
>>>>>>>>>>>> respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
>>>>>>>>>>>> is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
>>>>>>>>>>>> with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>>>>>>>>>>>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
>>>>>>>>>>>> and particularly the technical community significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>> influence and encourage the development, distribution and
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>>>>>>>>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>>>>>>>>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>>>>>>>>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org<http://e164.org>|awk -F!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> '{print $3}'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, seehttp://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> anrietteesterhuysenanriette at apc.org  executive director,
>>>>>>>>>> association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org  po box
>>>>>>>>>> 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> anrietteesterhuysenanriette at apc.org  executive director, association
>>>>>>> for progressive communicationswww.apc.org  po box 29755, melville
>>>>>>> 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140314/082f5748/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Sat Mar 15 01:48:30 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 01:48:30 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Re: [] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <532337AB.20703@acm.org>
References: <5322F7E5.4070308@itforchange.net> <5322FEDE.2060402@itforchange.net> <532337AB.20703@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5323E9AE.8060205@cis-india.org>

Avri Doria [2014-03-14 13:08]:
> "When one starts to consider the responsibilities of each of these roles
> one finds that the responsibilities also vary over issues, time and are
> subject to the phase of a process."
>
> http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/discussion-of-principles-related-to-stakeholder-roles-and-responsibilities/201
>
> So yes, stakeholders, qua being stakeholders, are equal in my analysis.
>    But their roles vary according to issue, phase of discussion, process
> and many other features. Sometimes one stakeholder group holds the
> primary deciding responsibility and sometimes others do.  But all always
> have an equal right to be heard as part of the process.

I've been trying to understand this for a while, but haven't found 
literature that directly addresses it:

What are the roles and responsibilities of religious groups and trade 
unions and political parties vis-a-vis Internet governance, and why are 
they so under-represented (if at all represented) in "civil society"? 
Don't these embody the "networks of civic engagement" fostered by "civil 
associations" that constitute "civil society"?

On a separate note:
Does APC have any members that are trade unions or religious groups or 
political parties?  (This is not a rhetorical question.)  Did CPSR have 
or does IGC have representatives from such groups?  I can't find any 
while looking at ISOC's membership.  (Perhaps the last might be 
explained away if we think of ISOC as not constituting a part of "civil 
society" for whatever reasons.)

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140315/d733f82b/attachment.sig>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 07:23:02 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 12:23:02 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com>

Hi

ICANN Singapore starts next week, and this will be the focus of many discussions, beginning with the NCUC conference on Friday 21, at which Larry S. is keynoting.  People begin to travel there early next week, and D.C. beltway types will quick to react.  So the timing seems sensible enough.

It might be fun to now go back and read some of the adamant statements made on these lists over the past few months about the Net Mundial being part of a secret plot to preserve the status quo etc.

Cheers

Bill

On Mar 14, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:

> Friday night. Interesting timing.
> 
> On 14 Mar 2014 22:56, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> And here comes the update:
> 
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
> 
> 
> Am 14.03.14 22:44, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann:
> 
> 
> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
> 
> More to follow I guess.
> 
> Jeanette
> 
> __
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140315/00f17e2a/attachment.htm>

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 13:39:25 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:39:25 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] against all odds
In-Reply-To: <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com>

Actually it turns out the timing was advanced from Monday to Friday evening by a press leak.  But Monday should still be interesting, a lot of statements getting readied for roll out.

Bill

On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:23 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> ICANN Singapore starts next week, and this will be the focus of many discussions, beginning with the NCUC conference on Friday 21, at which Larry S. is keynoting.  People begin to travel there early next week, and D.C. beltway types will quick to react.  So the timing seems sensible enough.
> 
> It might be fun to now go back and read some of the adamant statements made on these lists over the past few months about the Net Mundial being part of a secret plot to preserve the status quo etc.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> Friday night. Interesting timing.
>> 
>> On 14 Mar 2014 22:56, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>> And here comes the update:
>> 
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
>> 
>> 
>> Am 14.03.14 22:44, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann:
>> 
>> 
>> http://wapo.st/1eBBpGr
>> 
>> More to follow I guess.
>> 
>> Jeanette
>> 
>> __

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140315/cff7cde5/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Sat Mar 15 14:04:40 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 20:04:40 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53249638.8010105@apc.org>

Hi all

Here is the press release APC put out earlier today.  What are the plans
for a reaction from Best Bits?
http://www.apc.org/en/node/19068

Anriette

JOHANNESBURG, Mar 15 (APCNews)

PRESS STATEMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

*APC welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain
name functions*

14 March 2014 – The Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
welcomes the announcement made by the United States Commerce
Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions
to the global multi-stakeholder community
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'

NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and
debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.

We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
the openness of the internet.

“This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for ensuring really
effective and inclusive participation of all stakeholders on equal
footing in internet policy making, particularly those that currently
lack power and influence, are still evolving. A further challenge lies
in how to protect the broadest possible public interest in decisions
about DNS and internet root zone management,” said APC Executive
Director Anriette Esterhuysen. “Nevertheless, this is a very
constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique
opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance
ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from
developing countries,” she added.

We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting
on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br
<http://www.netmundial.br> ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.

APC’s proposals can be read here <http://www.apc.org/en/node/19043/>

About APC
The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international
network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone
to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a
more just world. Since its formation in 1990 the APC network and its
members have been committed to achieving universal and affordable access
to a free and open internet.

Press contacts
Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director – anriette at apc.org
Valeria Betancourt, APC Policy Manager – valeriab at apc.org
Avri Doria, APC affiliate – avri at acm.org
PO Box 29755
Melville, GT 2109
South Africa

(END/2014)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140315/0de728c0/attachment.htm>

From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 14:05:12 2014
From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:05:12 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] USA NTIA Walks Away from the ISOC ICANN MSH MLM .ORGy
Message-ID: <CAK41CSRDchtHvB-FgtWErV8zYLrJ7vFm1vwVimjLyP2BL+pseQ@mail.gmail.com>

USA NTIA Walks Away from the ISOC ICANN MSH MLM .ORGy

Americans are not accustomed to their telecommunication
systems being run [controlled] by unsavory psychos and amateur
jack-booted thugs.

It should be no surprise that USA government leaders would opt
to sever their ties [and endorsements] with the IANA Eco.System.

Some people [control freaks] will jump at the chance to flock to
the IANA Eco.System meetups, meetings, lovefests, BOFs, etc.

Other people will now have a clear choice. Some may even try to
play in both games. That will likely get to be more difficult.
The two value systems are distinctly different.

As an example, African Americans do not likely flock to KKK meetings.
The US Government also does not go there [openly].
Just substitute KKK or MAFIA for the IANA Eco.System and you
may see why some people prefer NOT to be part of that movement.

USA NTIA Walks Away from the ISOC ICANN MSH MLM .ORGy

-- 
3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds
http://3DNB.COM
Login: ZOOM
Password: BOX

@Techno_CAT_r
http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 14:15:09 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:15:09 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <53249638.8010105@apc.org>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org>
Message-ID: <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com>

I really like the APC release.  Rather than recreating the wheel, I suggest we pull out the portions best suited to a broad CS statement, worded in the style folks are most comfortable with, and seek quick signatories.  It would be great to get something to the outside world Monday (or soon thereafter)
On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> Here is the press release APC put out earlier today.  What are the plans for a reaction from Best Bits? 
> http://www.apc.org/en/node/19068
> 
> Anriette
> 
> JOHANNESBURG, Mar 15 (APCNews)
> 
> PRESS STATEMENT
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> 
> APC welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain name functions
> 
> 14 March 2014 – The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) welcomes the announcement made by the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.'
> 
> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
> 
> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society, governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains the openness of the internet.
> 
> “This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of all stakeholders on equal footing in internet policy making, particularly those that currently lack power and influence, are still evolving. A further challenge lies in how to protect the broadest possible public interest in decisions about DNS and internet root zone management,” said APC Executive Director Anriette Esterhuysen. “Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from developing countries,” she added.
> 
> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.
> 
> APC’s proposals can be read here
> 
> About APC
> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a more just world. Since its formation in 1990 the APC network and its members have been committed to achieving universal and affordable access to a free and open internet.
> 
> Press contacts
> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director – anriette at apc.org
> Valeria Betancourt, APC Policy Manager – valeriab at apc.org
> Avri Doria, APC affiliate – avri at acm.org
> PO Box 29755
> Melville, GT 2109
> South Africa
> 
> (END/2014)
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140315/d58aa575/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Mar  4 15:20:20 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:20:20 +1100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53163174.40400@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <53163174.40400@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <7AD7AC6852E64A71BB72973D903871A0@Toshiba>

works for me

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:03 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Cc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC ; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched 
for endorsement at bestbits.net

"Error establishing a database connection"

jeanette

Am 04.03.2014 21:00, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
> Dear all,
>
> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now
> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting.
>   These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the
> Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face
> review this week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of
> the institutional submission) by those of you who are present at
> RightsCon in San Francisco.
>
> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for
> endorsement separately, are:
>
>  1. Internet governance principles,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>  2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem – institutional mechanisms,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>  3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem – ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>
>
> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but
> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of
> the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to read
> the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree with
> them, of course), and then to spread the word through social media,
> email or word of mouth.
>
> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your
> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>







____________________________________________________________
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 wjdrake at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 14:31:30 2014
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 19:31:30 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>

+1 A BB statement Monday would be a good thing, there will be push back from opponents of change and CS support would be helpful.

BD

On Mar 15, 2014, at 7:15 PM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:

> I really like the APC release.  Rather than recreating the wheel, I suggest we pull out the portions best suited to a broad CS statement, worded in the style folks are most comfortable with, and seek quick signatories.  It would be great to get something to the outside world Monday (or soon thereafter)
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all
>> 
>> Here is the press release APC put out earlier today.  What are the plans for a reaction from Best Bits? 
>> http://www.apc.org/en/node/19068
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>> JOHANNESBURG, Mar 15 (APCNews)
>> 
>> PRESS STATEMENT
>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>> 
>> APC welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain name functions
>> 
>> 14 March 2014 – The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) welcomes the announcement made by the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.'
>> 
>> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>> 
>> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society, governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains the openness of the internet.
>> 
>> “This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of all stakeholders on equal footing in internet policy making, particularly those that currently lack power and influence, are still evolving. A further challenge lies in how to protect the broadest possible public interest in decisions about DNS and internet root zone management,” said APC Executive Director Anriette Esterhuysen. “Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from developing countries,” she added.
>> 
>> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.
>> 
>> APC’s proposals can be read here
>> 
>> About APC
>> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a more just world. Since its formation in 1990 the APC network and its members have been committed to achieving universal and affordable access to a free and open internet.
>> 
>> Press contacts
>> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director – anriette at apc.org
>> Valeria Betancourt, APC Policy Manager – valeriab at apc.org
>> Avri Doria, APC affiliate – avri at acm.org
>> PO Box 29755
>> Melville, GT 2109
>> South Africa
>> 
>> (END/2014)
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140315/f9d312a8/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 14:47:45 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:47:45 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0b3f01cf407f$0e47e250$2ad7a6f0$@gmail.com>

Am I the only one who reads the NTIA statement as trading off something which is not of core interest i.e. control over the DNS function (it can’t under any but the most extraordinary circumstances be used in any case), for something that seems t be of fundamental and core interest i.e. implanting Multi-stakeholderism at the very heart of the emerging mechanisms/institutions of global (Internet) Governance.

 

So the question is, why does the USG see (a still undefined) “multi-stakeholderism” as being so important?

 

M

 

 

BD

 

On Mar 15, 2014, at 7:15 PM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote:





I really like the APC release.  Rather than recreating the wheel, I suggest we pull out the portions best suited to a broad CS statement, worded in the style folks are most comfortable with, and seek quick signatories.  It would be great to get something to the outside world Monday (or soon thereafter)

On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:





Hi all

Here is the press release APC put out earlier today.  What are the plans for a reaction from Best Bits? 
http://www.apc.org/en/node/19068

Anriette

JOHANNESBURG, Mar 15 (APCNews)

PRESS STATEMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

APC welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain name functions

14 March 2014 – The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) welcomes the announcement made by the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> .'

NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade. 

We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society, governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains the openness of the internet.

“This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of all stakeholders on equal footing in internet policy making, particularly those that currently lack power and influence, are still evolving. A further challenge lies in how to protect the broadest possible public interest in decisions about DNS and internet root zone management,” said APC Executive Director Anriette Esterhuysen. “Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from developing countries,” she added. 

We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br <http://www.netmundial.br/>  ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014. 

 <http://www.apc.org/en/node/19043/> APC’s proposals can be read here

About APC
The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a more just world. Since its formation in 1990 the APC network and its members have been committed to achieving universal and affordable access to a free and open internet.

Press contacts
Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director – anriette at apc.org
Valeria Betancourt, APC Policy Manager – valeriab at apc.org
Avri Doria, APC affiliate – avri at acm.org
PO Box 29755
Melville, GT 2109
South Africa

(END/2014)

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140315/24dd31f4/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Sat Mar 15 15:02:08 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:02:08 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org>

Here is a version that could be used as a basis for the Best Bits
statement. I added a note about this being 'just one' step towards more
inclusive and accountable governance, even if a significant step.

Personally I think that the really interesting, but also challenging
outcome of this is that it means we need to rethink the NetMundial
Agenda and what we really want to get out of it.

What is so good though is that the conversation with governments, and
private institutions, the technical community etc. can now focus on the
substance of how decisions are made, and how participation is ensured,
and accountability and transparency maintained, and what principles are
used in making these decisions.

The location of ICANN in the US and the relationship with the US has
been a bottleneck in talking about 'enhanced coopration' etc. etc.  This
is not going to make it easier.

The challenge of dealing with governments who desire more control, and
those nongovernmental institutions involved in inernet governance who
are not sufficiently accountable, and not operating based on commonly
understood public interest and rights-based principles, remain.. and is
even greater actually. And a further challenge will be to ensure that
ICANN, while I think has been positively proactive, and in some senses
opportunistic (which is not a bad thing) since the NSA revelation, does
not, riding on increased legitimacy, unduly expand its scope, reach, power.

Anriette


*DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key
internet domain name functions*

Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the
United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key
internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'**

NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and
debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.

We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
the openness of the internet.

This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet
governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of
all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting are
still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not
in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or
protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root
zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the
right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the
evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly
important for stakeholders from developing countries.

We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting
on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br
<http://www.netmundial.br/> ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140315/2046a720/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 17:10:42 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 21:10:42 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement
 of March 14
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>

 Dear All,

Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
concerns.

We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
---

IGC Draft Press Release

On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.



The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates
the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder
policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In that regard, IGC
pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome
for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members
and subject to what the following actually entails: "Meet the needs and
expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services"] We
also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the
global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this
transition.


While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.


Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.


Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to
be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
Internet's domain name system.



The Internet Governance Caucus

March xx, 2014.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140315/bc347f4c/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sat Mar 15 18:11:45 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 23:11:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com> <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5324D021.7080706@wzb.eu>



Hi Anriette,

why do you think we need to rethink the agenda for NetMundial? Hasn't 
the future of the IANA functions always been part of it?

jeanette



> Personally I think that the really interesting, but also challenging
> outcome of this is that it means we need to rethink the NetMundial
> Agenda and what we really want to get out of it.
>
> What is so good though is that the conversation with governments, and
> private institutions, the technical community etc. can now focus on the
> substance of how decisions are made, and how participation is ensured,
> and accountability and transparency maintained, and what principles are
> used in making these decisions.
>
> The location of ICANN in the US and the relationship with the US has
> been a bottleneck in talking about 'enhanced coopration' etc. etc. This
> is not going to make it easier.
>
> The challenge of dealing with governments who desire more control, and
> those nongovernmental institutions involved in inernet governance who
> are not sufficiently accountable, and not operating based on commonly
> understood public interest and rights-based principles, remain.. and is
> even greater actually. And a further challenge will be to ensure that
> ICANN, while I think has been positively proactive, and in some senses
> opportunistic (which is not a bad thing) since the NSA revelation, does
> not, riding on increased legitimacy, unduly expand its scope, reach, power.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> *DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key
> internet domain name functions*
>
> Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the
> United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key
> internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'**
>
> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
> the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
> fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
> not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and
> debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>
> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
> multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
> governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
> just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
> making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
> the openness of the internet.
>
> This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet
> governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of
> all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting are
> still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not
> in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or
> protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root
> zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the
> right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the
> evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly
> important for stakeholders from developing countries.
>
> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
> transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
> processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
> consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
> recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
> can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting
> on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br
> <http://www.netmundial.br/> ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Mar 15 19:15:47 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 10:15:47 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the
 NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>

Hi Mawaki,


good start.

I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few in line comments and suggested alternatives

From: Mawaki Chango 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
To: Internet Governance 
Cc: Deirdre Williams ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14


Dear All,

Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.

We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
---

IGC Draft Press Release

On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship]. 



The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the Internet] [IP –2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a] particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition]. 



IP I would leave last bracketed section out



While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning. 



Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders]. 



[Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system]. 



The Internet Governance Caucus

March xx, 2014.



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/9cb10b49/attachment.htm>

From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG  Sat Mar 15 20:15:35 2014
From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG))
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 20:15:35 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu>
 <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com>
 <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org>
 <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF4A6547.6A5C%mgodwin@internews.org>

+1

Gene has this right.


--
Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
mgodwin at internews.org<mailto:mgodwin at internews.org> | Mobile 415-793-4446
Skype mnemonic1026
Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA

INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.
www.internews.org<http://www.internews.org/> | @internews<http://www.twitter.com/internews> | facebook.com/internews<http://www.facebook.com/internews>

From: Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com<mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>>
Reply-To: Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com<mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>>
Date: Saturday, March 15, 2014 at 2:15 PM
To: "anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org> Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>>
Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>, Renata Avila <renata at webfoundation.org<mailto:renata at webfoundation.org>>, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu<mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>>, Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment

I really like the APC release.  Rather than recreating the wheel, I suggest we pull out the portions best suited to a broad CS statement, worded in the style folks are most comfortable with, and seek quick signatories.  It would be great to get something to the outside world Monday (or soon thereafter)
On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:

Hi all

Here is the press release APC put out earlier today.  What are the plans for a reaction from Best Bits?
http://www.apc.org/en/node/19068

Anriette


JOHANNESBURG, Mar 15 (APCNews)

PRESS STATEMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

APC welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain name functions

14 March 2014 – The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) welcomes the announcement made by the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'

NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.

We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society, governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains the openness of the internet.

“This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of all stakeholders on equal footing in internet policy making, particularly those that currently lack power and influence, are still evolving. A further challenge lies in how to protect the broadest possible public interest in decisions about DNS and internet root zone management,” said APC Executive Director Anriette Esterhuysen. “Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from developing countries,” she added.

We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br<http://www.netmundial.br/> ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.

APC’s proposals can be read here<http://www.apc.org/en/node/19043/>

About APC
The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a more just world. Since its formation in 1990 the APC network and its members have been committed to achieving universal and affordable access to a free and open internet.

Press contacts
Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director – anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
Valeria Betancourt, APC Policy Manager – valeriab at apc.org<mailto:valeriab at apc.org>
Avri Doria, APC affiliate – avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>
PO Box 29755
Melville, GT 2109
South Africa

(END/2014)

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




Click here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/hz5Wsed!sS7GX2PQPOmvUhbKKPHn4qwNxl2gJMK45UmYamxBteS9Aef5UbuNQYe8!whT4nknGOdSWoTyPktGDA==> to report this email as spam.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140315/d919a075/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 20:19:55 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 00:19:55 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the
 NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-h_xUjxNatSi3y1FDvobkU6-TP75MEows=wZ2Q1ZsGMw@mail.gmail.com>

 Hi Ian,

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Hi Mawaki,
>
>
> good start.
>
> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long.
>

I expected that one.
Will wait till Monday morning to reviews the comments, suggestions or
proposed edits before proposing a new draft.
Thank you,

mC


> So in my thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also
> have a few in line comments and suggested alternatives
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/11ac3ea7/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Mar 15 20:42:47 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:42:47 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the
 NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>

Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;

1. While happy to endorse “multistakeholder” as a step forward for these particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my first suggested change below. 

2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary” – administrative perhaps?

3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of certain groups.

From: Ian Peter 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Mawaki Chango ; Internet Governance 
Cc: Deirdre Williams ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14

Hi Mawaki,good start.



I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few in line comments and suggested alternatives.

From: Mawaki Chango 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
To: Internet Governance 
Cc: Deirdre Williams ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14


Dear All,

Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same concerns.

We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
---

IGC Draft Press Release

On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship]. 



The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the Internet] [IP –2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a] particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this transition]. 



IP I would leave last bracketed section out



While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning. 



Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders]. 



[Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system]. 



The Internet Governance Caucus

March xx, 2014.



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

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

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



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/ce816ebe/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Sat Mar 15 21:53:08 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:53:08 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com> <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org>
Message-ID: <3260E8E1-AE94-4F31-919D-D5280B9B646A@Malcolm.id.au>

On 16 Mar 2014, at 3:02 am, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain name functions
> 
> Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.'
> 
> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
> 
> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society, governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision making) and for requiring     that the resulting transition plan maintains the openness of the internet.
> 
> This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting are still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from developing countries.
> 
> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.

I support us releasing this statement for sign-on, and can have it online in the next few hours, after leaving some more time for any amendments to be suggested.  Please follow up by 12pm Sunday GMT/UTC with any amendments if you can (ie. about 10 hours from now).  Thanks Anriette.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/8949b5b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/8949b5b5/attachment.sig>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue Mar  4 21:53:48 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:53:48 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Please pre-register by today for NETmundial 2014 civil
 society coordination meeting
Message-ID: <11EEE2C4-4785-4E45-81D2-96E85D898313@Malcolm.id.au>

Dear all,

If anyone has already registered to attend NETmundial 2014 in São Paulo on 23-24 April, but has not got funding to support their travel (and needs it), and if you have not yet also separately registered to attend the civil society coordination meeting on the preceding day (22 April) and indicated a need for funding, please do so today.  The organisers of the coordination meeting aim to use the next week to try to sort out a list of people to whom travel funding can be extended, and to finalise this by 12 March when the official list of those accepted to attend the main NETmundial meeting will be released.

Thanks.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/f7630c50/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/f7630c50/attachment.sig>

From kichango at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 21:55:14 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 01:55:14 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the
 NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9=QOZjd_1E9E0LOvwpdmV+b_Yk7zXE1zjBn1HJp6KSHw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Ian for clarifying your rationale. That is useful.

I would really suggest, though, to you or anyone who is willing to help to
propose actual wording, for as you all probably know English is not my
first language and often times I have to agonize over wording even more
than it appears afterward in order to make sure I get the full meaning
across. So please don't hesitate; this would be a welcomed relief.

On the other hand, be assured I have no complex... if the correction being
proposed doesn't not seem to acknowledge the original intent or
misunderstands it, I'm able to explain and, if need be, defend the latter
(not because it cannot be changed but to make sure it is changed only in
full knowledge of the intent.)

Thanks.


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
>
> 1. While happy to endorse "multistakeholder" as a step forward for these
> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a
> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my
> first suggested change below.
>
> 2. I wouldn't describe the role of technical organisations as "primary" -
> administrative perhaps?
>
> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of
> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of
> certain groups.
>
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>  *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
> *To:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> ; Internet Governance<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
>
>   Hi Mawaki,good start.
>
>
>
> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my
> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few in
> line comments and suggested alternatives.
>
>  *From:* Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>  *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
>
>
>    Dear All,
>
> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
> concerns.
>
> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
> ---
>
> IGC Draft Press Release
>
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the
> Internet] [IP -2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]
> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve
> all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully
> completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject
> to what the following actually entails: "Meet the needs and expectation of
> the global customers and partners of the IANA services"] We also support
> the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global
> Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this
> transition].
>
>
>
> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>
>
>
> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' [ IP or"private sector led"]
> but is rather open to embrace a 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global governance
> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
> global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses must be found
> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders].
>
>
>
> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
> Internet's domain name system].
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>  ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/069d1e81/attachment.htm>

From andrea at digitalpolicy.it  Sun Mar 16 03:18:51 2014
From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:18:51 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Statement of the European Commission of 15.03.2014:
 Towards further Globalisation of the Internet
In-Reply-To: <CAOLD2+Z1VORz55z4DP6goRPUrbij8Wvx_g4HOiqesOaGw=qsog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOLD2+Z1VORz55z4DP6goRPUrbij8Wvx_g4HOiqesOaGw=qsog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOLD2+bTvcvkQV7XhS-BfLr1EtnoHVWKLdqxRvB6xemnhrU65g@mail.gmail.com>

Of possible interest to the members of this list.

Towards further Globalisation of the Internet

European Commission - STATEMENT/14/70   15/03/2014

Other available languages: none

Share
 Expand
 Back to the search results<http://europa.eu/rapid/search-result.htm?locale=EN>

   -  DOC <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-70_en.doc>
   -  PDF <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-70_en.pdf>

European Commission

Statement

Brussels, 15 March 2014

Towards further Globalisation of the Internet

Brussels, 15 March 2014 - Vice President Neelie Kroes today warmly welcomed
the announcement of the United States Government to "transition out of the
IANA function", which will allow a more global multi-stakeholder basis for
an important element of governance of the Internet.


"This is an historical step in making Internet governance truly global, and
marks major progress towards the development of a multi-stakeholder model
as advocated in the Commission's recent Communication" Vice-President Kroes
said.


Until now the United States has had the final say in changes to globally
used data on top-level Internet domain names, such as .com or .de.  The
Commission has been pushing for such a move since 2009 and, most recently
in its Communication on Internet Policy and Governance of 12 February 2014,
called for the globalisation of the IANA functions.


The Commission's Communication - like the US announcement - stresses the
need to safeguard in the globalisation process the security and stability
of the Internet, and commits to the multi-stakeholder model of governance.


"It is a very timely announcement, ahead of an important multi-stakeholder
conference in São Paulo on Internet governance principles and the future
evolution of the governance ecosystem" added Vice President Kroes. "The
European Commission will work together with the US and with all global
stakeholders to implement the globalisation of the IANA functions in a
process that is accountable and transparent, and in a manner that secures
the open Internet and that will underpin human rights."

Contacts :

Ryan Heath (+32 460 750221 <+32%20460%20750221>)- (+32 2 296 17
16<+32%202%20296%2017%2016>
)

For the public: Europe Direct by phone 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 or by
e-mail<http://europa.eu/europedirect/write_to_us/>


-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/f6384545/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun Mar 16 05:28:21 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 10:28:21 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the
 NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <53256EB5.8010702@wzb.eu>

Hi, I support the changes that Ian proposes. I have one further 
suggestion which concerns the following para:

It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ 
is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP 
or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a 
‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.

Could we simplify this sentence to the effect that the future model must 
ensure that neither governments nor any single stakeholder group can 
dominate the policy process?

Jeanette

Am 16.03.14 01:42, schrieb Ian Peter:
> Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
> 1. While happy to endorse “multistakeholder” as a step forward for these
> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a
> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my
> first suggested change below.
> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
> – administrative perhaps?
> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of
> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of
> certain groups.
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *From:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
> *To:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> ; Internet Governance
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
> Hi Mawaki,good start.
> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my
> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few
> in line comments and suggested alternatives.
> *From:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
> Dear All,
> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
> concerns.
> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
> ---
> IGC Draft Press Release
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase
> of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the
> Internet] [IP –2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]
> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired
> outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant
> by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the
> needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
> services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
> proposal to finalize this transition].
>
> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>
> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views
> of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies.
> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the
> extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including
> due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of
> Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term
> ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean
> ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is
> rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>
> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global
> governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that
> actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses
> must be found to the concern that while achieving effective
> accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should
> not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of
> others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet
> stakeholders].
>
> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(www.netmundial.br
> <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise
> that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal
> the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that
> meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in
> the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system].
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Mar 16 06:28:53 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:58:53 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>


Mawaki

Thanks for this effort.

As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable 
multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we 
have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly 
excludes decision making on public policy issues... This particular 
language should therefore be struck out.

Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and 
complimenting US gov for it, shouldupfront say that we are eager to know 
more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no 
longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in 
independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the 
issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to 
US laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 
'freeing ICANN' and if so, of what nature.... And that we look forward 
to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in a manner that takes care 
of these issues..

Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do 
not have customers, only constituencies and the such...

Thanks, parminder


On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and 
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering 
> the speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with 
> same concerns.
>
> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
> ---
>
> IGC Draft Press Release
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications 
> and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to 
> relinquish the oversight role it has played so far with the Internet 
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key 
> Internet domain name functions.  As the announcement points out, this 
> marks the final phase of the transition intended from the inception of 
> ICANN toward the privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its 
> stewardship.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and 
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable 
> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the 
> Internet. In that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the 
> reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to involve all stakeholders in 
> the process as well as in the desired outcome for fully completing the 
> above transition. [If deemed relevant by members and subject to what 
> the following actually entails: “Meet the needs and expectation of the 
> global customers and partners of the IANA services”] We also support 
> the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICANN and the global 
> Internet community in the formulation of a proposal to finalize this 
> transition.
>
>
> While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and 
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the 
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and 
> views of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet 
> policies. Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model 
> to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, 
> including due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the 
> context of Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make 
> sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean 
> ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ but is rather open to embrace a 
> ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>
>
> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the 
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global 
> governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that 
> actually is global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate 
> responses must be found to the concern that while achieving effective 
> accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) 
> should not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the 
> exclusion of others. It must be equally available and accessible to 
> all Internet stakeholders.
>
>
> Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the 
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(www.netmundial.br 
> <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise 
> that it includes in its consultation process for the transition 
> proposal the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and 
> outcomes of that meeting as regards the phasing out of the current 
> role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name 
> system.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/62379b6c/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sun Mar 16 07:08:26 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:08:26 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the
 NTIA announcement of March 14
Message-ID: <fgskvhkwy11gvpowghvcvuyt.1394968082573@email.android.com>

Yes, Jean!




------------
C. A. Afonso

-------- Original message --------
From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> 
Date: 16-03-2014  06:28  (GMT-03:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>,Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> 
Cc: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA announcement of March 14 
 
Hi, I support the changes that Ian proposes. I have one further 
suggestion which concerns the following para:

It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ 
is not reduced to mean ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP 
or“private sector led”] but is rather open to embrace a 
‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.

Could we simplify this sentence to the effect that the future model must 
ensure that neither governments nor any single stakeholder group can 
dominate the policy process?

Jeanette

Am 16.03.14 01:42, schrieb Ian Peter:
> Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
> 1. While happy to endorse “multistakeholder” as a step forward for these
> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a
> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my
> first suggested change below.
> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
> – administrative perhaps?
> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of
> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of
> certain groups.
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *From:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
> *To:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> ; Internet Governance
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
> Hi Mawaki,good start.
> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my
> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few
> in line comments and suggested alternatives.
> *From:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
> *To:* Internet Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
> Dear All,
> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
> concerns.
> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
> ---
> IGC Draft Press Release
>
> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase
> of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the
> Internet] [IP –2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]
> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired
> outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant
> by members and subject to what the following actually entails: “Meet the
> needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
> services”] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
> proposal to finalize this transition].
>
> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>
> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views
> of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies.
> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the
> extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including
> due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of
> Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term
> ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean
> ‘anti-all-governments-of-the-world’ [ IP or“private sector led”] but is
> rather open to embrace a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.
>
> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global
> governance institution – with a constituency and a customer base that
> actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses
> must be found to the concern that while achieving effective
> accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should
> not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of
> others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet
> stakeholders].
>
> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(www.netmundial.br
> <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise
> that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal
> the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that
> meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in
> the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system].
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/528a3588/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Sun Mar 16 08:26:12 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:26:12 +0800
Subject: [URGENT] NTIA statement published for sign-on (was: Re: [bestbits]
 NTIA announcment)
In-Reply-To: <3260E8E1-AE94-4F31-919D-D5280B9B646A@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com> <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org> <3260E8E1-AE94-4F31-919D-D5280B9B646A@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <82F5E1B4-E26E-4DB4-B499-757D5B1CE9B3@Malcolm.id.au>

Please now see http://bestbits.net/ntia-announcement/ where I have published the statement below with just two minor amendments to cover sensitivities about how we describe statements published through the Best Bits platform, viz. "adding "The undersigned" before "members of the Best Bits coalition" at the start, and the title changed from "Best Bits welcomes" to "Civil society representatives welcome".

So that we can get in early for Monday morning, please endorse this joint statement as soon as possible if you agree with it.  The address again:

http://bestbits.net/ntia-announcement/

Thanks!

On 16 Mar 2014, at 9:53 am, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote:

> On 16 Mar 2014, at 3:02 am, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
>> DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet domain name functions
>> 
>> Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.'
>> 
>> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>> 
>> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society, governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains the openness of the internet.
>> 
>> This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting are still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from developing countries.
>> 
>> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.
> 
> I support us releasing this statement for sign-on, and can have it online in the next few hours, after leaving some more time for any amendments to be suggested.  Please follow up by 12pm Sunday GMT/UTC with any amendments if you can (ie. about 10 hours from now).  Thanks Anriette.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
> 

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/4f6dbbde/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/4f6dbbde/attachment.sig>

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 08:27:31 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:27:31 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <fgskvhkwy11gvpowghvcvuyt.1394968082573@email.android.com>
References: <fgskvhkwy11gvpowghvcvuyt.1394968082573@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtPwod2eXOH1=JeZokPwCJSZNwZz1Y5EQVP8HLjvHb1aaw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mawaki,

Thank you for taking the initiative and putting in the effort. In my
personal view, IGC should be strongly concerned about the policy
making mechanisms of both this change the its future thus this should
be well mentioned.

It is very unclear of how this model will evolve in the future. Will
ICANN continue to be that body that manages the IANA function, what is
the future of IANA then?

Will IANA and ICANN be integrated into one organizational model and
how will this organization be moved out of the US and that brings us
back to the initial discussions on the IGC list about the various
possible models including one where ICANN be located to Geneva and
thereof act as an International organization and go into agreements,
treaty or non-treaty bindings with the participation of various
multilateral or bilateral, civil society, technical community and
private sector organizations and bodies.

It is also important to see how Governments are reacting to this and
the Singapore ICANN Public Meeting will be a good space to see how the
GAC responds or the statements that come out of there.

This is a whole new process and we have to find a way to keep IGC
involved inside out of the present and future of this transition where
IGC also holds ground in all policy development processes of this new
form of Internet Governance of the Domain and Naming Space of the
Internet.

As far as the issue of primary Internet organizations are concerned,
that role has evolved to their present state and the Domain and IP
owners, users, consumers or whatever the human role in the
transactional value of domains be, is very primary and important so
that cannot be left to just mentioning Internet organizations as
primary, the human being or user or consumer is primary and thats who
makes this whole system work and creates the demand for this political
economy to operate.

The new role of ICANN or any for the operation and management of an
internationalized and independent domain name space beyond the control
of any nation requires that stakeholders are clearly mentioned and
brought into such a space on equal footing and grounds. That is not
the case as such.

The present ICANN community development processes do inhibit
participation from across the world and though there are some
productive efforts in place but they are not abundant.

Mawaki, when you say [consideration to the concerns and views of
non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies],
that becomes the version of ICANN itself and a terminology that it
uses to create a crack between the Non-Profit or Non-Private Sector
groups that work consistently to find common grounds to work together
but are subject to hierarchy.

IF we look at the present state of the Board of ICANN, you will find a
great deal of imbalance that I have already mentioned.

The statement needs to be reviewed to represent a collective voice of
IGC and in its own words rather than terminology incorporated from
ICANN lingo.


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Yes, Jean!
>
>
>
>
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> Date: 16-03-2014 06:28 (GMT-03:00)
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>,Mawaki
> Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
> Cc: Deirdre Williams
> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
> announcement of March 14
>
>
> Hi, I support the changes that Ian proposes. I have one further
> suggestion which concerns the following para:
>
> It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder'
> is not reduced to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' [ IP
> or"private sector led"] but is rather open to embrace a
> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>
> Could we simplify this sentence to the effect that the future model must
> ensure that neither governments nor any single stakeholder group can
> dominate the policy process?
>
> Jeanette
>
> Am 16.03.14 01:42, schrieb Ian Peter:
>> Just to outline some of the issues behind some of my suggested changes ;
>> 1. While happy to endorse "multistakeholder" as a step forward for these
>> particular functions, I am not sure we want to endorse it as a
>> one-size-fits-all model for all aspects of internet governance. Hence my
>> first suggested change below.
>> 2. I wouldn't describe the role of technical organisations as "primary"
>> - administrative perhaps?
>> 3. Perhaps we can word better the section as regards meaning of
>> multistakeholder and our concerns this could be a mask for dominance of
>> certain groups.
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *From:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15 AM
>> *To:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com> ; Internet Governance
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
>> announcement of March 14
>> Hi Mawaki,good start.
>> I think some sections are repetitive and it may be too long. So in my
>> thinking I have square bracketed some sections below and also have a few
>> in line comments and suggested alternatives.
>> *From:* Mawaki Chango <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:10 AM
>> *To:* Internet Governance <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Cc:* Deirdre Williams <mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com> ;
>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> *Subject:* [governance] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
>> announcement of March 14
>> Dear All,
>> Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
>> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
>> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
>> concerns.
>> We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>> ---
>> IGC Draft Press Release
>>
>> On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
>> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
>> functions.  [As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase
>> of the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
>> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship].
>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
>> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
>> multistakeholder policymaking model for [ 1. the governance of the
>> Internet] [IP -2.  these functions]. In that regard, IGC pays [a]
>
>> particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of the necessity to
>> involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the desired
>> outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed relevant
>> by members and subject to what the following actually entails: "Meet the
>> needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA
>> services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
>> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
>> proposal to finalize this transition].
>>
>> IP I would leave last bracketed section out
>>
>> While acknowledging the [primary] role of Internet organizations and
>> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
>> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views
>> of non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies.
>> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the
>> extent that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including
>> due consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of
>> Internet policy). It will be a constant challenge to make sure the term
>> 'multistakeholder' is not reduced to mean
>> 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' [ IP or"private sector led"] but is
>
>> rather open to embrace a 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>>
>> Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
>> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fit  a truly global
>
>> governance institution - with a constituency and a customer base that
>> actually is global.[ Related to that and more broadly adequate responses
>
>> must be found to the concern that while achieving effective
>> accountability such institution (to emerge from this transition) should
>> not be subject to any one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of
>> others. It must be equally available and accessible to all Internet
>> stakeholders].
>>
>> [Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
>
>> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance(www.netmundial.br
>> <http://www.netmundial.br>) to be held in Brazil this April, we advise
>
>> that it includes in its consultation process for the transition proposal
>> the propositions made in submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that
>> meeting as regards the phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in
>> the coordination of the Internet's domain name system].
>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>> March xx, 2014.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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:
>      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 avri at acm.org  Sun Mar 16 08:28:01 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:28:01 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <532598D1.90103@acm.org>



On 15-Mar-14 20:42, Ian Peter wrote:
> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
> – administrative perhaps?


I do not think that the role of the IETF, is administrative.  Perhaps 
Primary has a connotation of most important that you want to avoid, but 
creating and maintaining the protocols that make the Internet possible 
is a bit more than administration.

Perhaps 'essential role' would work?  Does not rank things (many 
ingredients can all be essential) but does admit that without them, we 
have nothing.  Critical would be another possible word, but that word 
seem to carry more connotations than essential.

I support such a press release as long as it does not back off the 
notions of multistakeholder particpatory democracy - albeit they are 
still unfolding.  It is good to indicate that off course this does not 
work out the same in all contexts (aka not one size fits all), but we 
ought to persist in defining that full participation by all stakeholders 
in the process is essential.

avri

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 14:01:25 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:01:25 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times
 (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
In-Reply-To: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com>

Perhaps the discussions on Internet Governance should be seen as a form of
trade negotiation. I think it is clear that at least some of the
participating
<http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_S
ingle_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf> "stakeholders"
recognize the connection.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thiru
Balasubramaniam
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:36 AM
To: a2k at lists.keionline.org; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
Subject: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog): On
the Wrong Side of Globalization

 

 
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-global
ization/>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globali
zation/

THE GREAT DIVIDE<
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/?module=Blog
Category&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=B
logs&region=Header>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/?module=BlogC
ategory&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Bl
ogs&region=Header>

MARCH 15, 2014, 5:06 PM

On the Wrong Side of Globalization

By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ<
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz/>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz/>

 

Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over, but we
should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade proposals in the
works that threaten to put most Americans on the wrong side of
globalization.

 

The conflicting views about the agreements are actually tearing at the
fabric of the Democratic Party<
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts-doubt-on-p
illar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResult
s%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%2
3%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts-doubt-on-pi
llar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults
%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23
%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>,

though you wouldn't know it from President Obama's rhetoric. In his State of
the Union address, for example, he blandly referred to "new trade
partnerships" that would "create more jobs." Most immediately at issue is
the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which would bring together 12
countries along the Pacific Rim in what would be the largest free trade area
in the world.

 

Negotiations for the TPP began in 2010, for the purpose, according to the
United States Trade Representative<
<http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outline
s-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines
-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>,

of increasing trade and investment, through lowering tariffs and other trade
barriers among participating countries. But the TPP negotiations have been
taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked drafts<
<https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html>
https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html> to guess at the
proposed provisions. At the same time, Congress introduced a bill<
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_wo
uld_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html>
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_wou
ld_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html>

this

year that would grant the White House filibuster-proof fast-track authority,
under which Congress simply approves or rejects whatever trade agreement is
put before it, without revisions or amendments.

 

Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks -- and the
history of arrangements in past trade pacts -- it is easy to infer the shape
of the whole TPP, and it doesn't look good. There is a real risk that it
will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and global elite at the
expense of everyone else. The fact that such a plan is under consideration
at all is testament to how deeply inequality reverberates through our
economic policies.

 

Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem: our
gross mismanagement of globalization.

 

Let's tackle the history first. In general, trade deals today are markedly
different from those made in the decades following World War II, when
negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came down on all sides,
trade expanded, and each country could develop the sectors in which it had
strengths and as a result, standards of living would rise. Some jobs would
be lost, but new jobs would be created.

 

Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the
world are already low. The focus has shifted to "nontariff barriers," and
the most important of these -- for the corporate interests pushing
agreements -- are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain that
inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the regulations,
even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to protect workers,
consumers, the economy and the environment.

 

What's more, those regulations were often put in place by governments
responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements'

new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory
harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to
promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization by
strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But when
corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a race to the
bottom.

 

When agreements like the TPP govern international trade -- when every
country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations -- multinational
corporations can return to the practices that were common before the Clean
Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972, respectively) and
before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations everywhere may well
agree that getting rid of regulations would be good for corporate profits.

Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would be
good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big losers --
namely, the rest of us.

 

These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade negotiations
proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries are captured by
corporate and financial interests. And when negotiations are secret, there
is no way that the democratic process can exert the checks and balances
required to put limits on the negative effects of these agreements.

 

The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the TPP.

What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of the
worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an international
tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also for alleged diminution
of their potential profits as a result of regulation.

This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried this
tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking regulations, which
have won accolades from the World Health Organization, unfairly hurt
profits, violating a bilateral trade treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay.
In this sense, recent trade agreements are reminiscent of the Opium Wars, in
which Western powers successfully demanded that China keep itself open to
opium because they saw it as vital in correcting what otherwise would be a
large trade imbalance.

 

Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used
elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing
countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the
evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and controversial.
And though these countries are the most obvious victims, the same issue
could become a problem for the United States, as well. American corporations
could conceivably create a subsidiary in some Pacific Rim country, invest in
the United States through that subsidiary, and then take action against the
United States government -- getting rights as a "foreign"

company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this is
not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence that
companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different countries on
the basis of where their legal position in relation to the government is
strongest.

 

There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower the
cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of generic
drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In the poorest
countries, this is not just about moving money into corporate coffers:

thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have to
be compensated. That's why we have a patent system. But the patent system is
supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual protection with
another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more available. I've
written<
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-r
einforces-inequality/>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-re
inforces-inequality/>

before

about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the genes
that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up rejecting
those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily.

Trade agreements provide even more

opportunities<
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-r
einforces-inequality/>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-re
inforces-inequality/>

for

patent abuse.

 

The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents
suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell risky
derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same kind of
crisis that led to the Great Recession.

 

In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP and
agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this support
possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has remained in
circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.

 

Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline's early years.
Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the winners can
always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even freer trade) is a
win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on numerous assumptions,
many of which are simply wrong.

 

The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed that
workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that the economy
was at full employment, so that workers displaced by globalization would
quickly move from low-productivity sectors (which had thrived simply because
foreign competition was kept at bay through tariffs and other trade

restrictions) to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high level
of unemployment, and especially when a large percentage of the unemployed
have been out of work long-term (as is the case now), there can't be such
complacency.

 

Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job but
can't get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real risk that
individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a protected sector
will end up zero-productivity members of the vast ranks of the unemployed.

This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts
downward pressure on wages.

 

We can argue over why our economy isn't performing the way it's supposed to

-- whether it's because of a lack of aggregate demand, or because our banks,
more interested in speculation and market manipulation than lending, are not
providing adequate funds to small and medium-size enterprises. But whatever
the reasons, the reality is that these trade agreements do risk increasing
unemployment.

 

One of the reasons that we are in such bad shape is that we have mismanaged
globalization. Our economic policies encourage the outsourcing of jobs:

Goods produced abroad with cheap labor can be cheaply brought back into the
United States. So American workers understand that they have to compete with
those abroad, and their bargaining power is weakened. This is one of the
reasons that the real median income of full-time male workers is lower than
it was<
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?
action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%
2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMas
thead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHome
page%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1>
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?a
ction=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2
Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMast
head%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomep
age%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1>

40

years ago.

 

American politics today compounds these problems. Even in the best of
circumstances, the old free trade theory said only that the winners could
compensate the losers, not that they would. And they haven't -- quite the
opposite. Advocates of trade agreements often say that for America to be
competitive, not only will wages have to be cut, but so will taxes and
expenditures, especially on programs that are of benefit to ordinary
citizens. We should accept the short-term pain, they say, because in the
long run, all will benefit. But as John Maynard Keynes famously said in
another context, "in the long run we are all dead." In this case, there is
little evidence that the trade agreements will lead to faster or more
profound growth.

 

Critics of the TPP are so numerous because both the process and the theory
that undergird it are bankrupt. Opposition has blossomed not just in the
United States, but also in Asia, where the talks have stalled.

 

By leading a full-on rejection of fast-track authority for the TPP, the
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, seems to have given us all a little
respite. Those who see trade agreements as enriching corporations at the
expense of the 99 percent seem to have won this skirmish. But there is a
broader war to ensure that trade policy -- and globalization more generally

-- is designed so as to increase the standards of living of most Americans.

The outcome of that war remains uncertain.

 

In this series, I have repeatedly made two points: The first is that the
high level of inequality in the United States today, and its enormous
increase during the past 30 years, is the cumulative result of an array of
policies, programs and laws. Given that the president himself has emphasized
that inequality should be the country's top priority, every new policy,
program or law should be examined from the perspective of its impact on
inequality. Agreements like the TPP have contributed in important ways to
this inequality. Corporations may profit, and it is even possible, though
far from assured, that gross domestic product as conventionally measured
will increase. But the well-being of ordinary citizens is likely to take a
hit.

 

And this brings me to the second point that I have repeatedly emphasized:

Trickle-down economics is a myth. Enriching corporations -- as the TPP would

-- will not necessarily help those in the middle, let alone those at the
bottom.

_______________________________________________

A2k mailing list

 <mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org> A2k at lists.keionline.org

 <http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org>
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/7fcf1885/attachment.htm>

From nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 16 14:22:27 2014
From: nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com (Nathalie Coupet)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:22:27 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times
 (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
In-Reply-To: <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com>
References: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com> <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A773244B-DB84-486D-A1D1-964CF5381354@yahoo.com>

Thank you, Michael!

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2014, at 2:01 PM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps the discussions on Internet Governance should be seen as a form of trade negotiation. I think it is clear that at least some of the participating "stakeholders" recognize the connection.
>  
> M
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thiru Balasubramaniam
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:36 AM
> To: a2k at lists.keionline.org; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> Subject: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>  
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/
> THE GREAT DIVIDE<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/?module=BlogCategory&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Header>
> MARCH 15, 2014, 5:06 PM
> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
> By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz/>
>  
> Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over, but we should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade proposals in the works that threaten to put most Americans on the wrong side of globalization.
>  
> The conflicting views about the agreements are actually tearing at the fabric of the Democratic Party<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts-doubt-on-pillar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>,
> though you wouldn't know it from President Obama's rhetoric. In his State of the Union address, for example, he blandly referred to "new trade partnerships" that would "create more jobs." Most immediately at issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which would bring together 12 countries along the Pacific Rim in what would be the largest free trade area in the world.
>  
> Negotiations for the TPP began in 2010, for the purpose, according to the United States Trade Representative<http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>,
> of increasing trade and investment, through lowering tariffs and other trade barriers among participating countries. But the TPP negotiations have been taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked drafts<https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html> to guess at the proposed provisions. At the same time, Congress introduced a bill<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_would_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html>
> this
> year that would grant the White House filibuster-proof fast-track authority, under which Congress simply approves or rejects whatever trade agreement is put before it, without revisions or amendments.
>  
> Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks -- and the history of arrangements in past trade pacts -- it is easy to infer the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesn't look good. There is a real risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and global elite at the expense of everyone else. The fact that such a plan is under consideration at all is testament to how deeply inequality reverberates through our economic policies.
>  
> Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem: our gross mismanagement of globalization.
>  
> Let's tackle the history first. In general, trade deals today are markedly different from those made in the decades following World War II, when negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came down on all sides, trade expanded, and each country could develop the sectors in which it had strengths and as a result, standards of living would rise. Some jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created.
>  
> Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the world are already low. The focus has shifted to "nontariff barriers," and the most important of these -- for the corporate interests pushing agreements -- are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.
>  
> What's more, those regulations were often put in place by governments responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements'
> new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a race to the bottom.
>  
> When agreements like the TPP govern international trade -- when every country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations -- multinational corporations can return to the practices that were common before the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972, respectively) and before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be good for corporate profits.
> Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big losers -- namely, the rest of us.
>  
> These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade negotiations proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries are captured by corporate and financial interests. And when negotiations are secret, there is no way that the democratic process can exert the checks and balances required to put limits on the negative effects of these agreements.
>  
> The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the TPP.
> What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of the worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an international tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also for alleged diminution of their potential profits as a result of regulation.
> This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried this tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking regulations, which have won accolades from the World Health Organization, unfairly hurt profits, violating a bilateral trade treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay. In this sense, recent trade agreements are reminiscent of the Opium Wars, in which Western powers successfully demanded that China keep itself open to opium because they saw it as vital in correcting what otherwise would be a large trade imbalance.
>  
> Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and controversial. And though these countries are the most obvious victims, the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well. American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government -- getting rights as a "foreign"
> company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different countries on the basis of where their legal position in relation to the government is strongest.
>  
> There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into corporate coffers:
> thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have to be compensated. That's why we have a patent system. But the patent system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual protection with another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more available. I've written<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-reinforces-inequality/>
> before
> about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily.
> Trade agreements provide even more
> opportunities<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-reinforces-inequality/>
> for
> patent abuse.
>  
> The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell risky derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same kind of crisis that led to the Great Recession.
>  
> In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP and agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this support possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has remained in circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.
>  
> Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline's early years. Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the winners can always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even freer trade) is a win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on numerous assumptions, many of which are simply wrong.
>  
> The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed that workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that the economy was at full employment, so that workers displaced by globalization would quickly move from low-productivity sectors (which had thrived simply because foreign competition was kept at bay through tariffs and other trade
> restrictions) to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high level of unemployment, and especially when a large percentage of the unemployed have been out of work long-term (as is the case now), there can't be such complacency.
>  
> Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job but can't get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real risk that individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a protected sector will end up zero-productivity members of the vast ranks of the unemployed.
> This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts downward pressure on wages.
>  
> We can argue over why our economy isn't performing the way it's supposed to
> -- whether it's because of a lack of aggregate demand, or because our banks, more interested in speculation and market manipulation than lending, are not providing adequate funds to small and medium-size enterprises. But whatever the reasons, the reality is that these trade agreements do risk increasing unemployment.
>  
> One of the reasons that we are in such bad shape is that we have mismanaged globalization. Our economic policies encourage the outsourcing of jobs:
> Goods produced abroad with cheap labor can be cheaply brought back into the United States. So American workers understand that they have to compete with those abroad, and their bargaining power is weakened. This is one of the reasons that the real median income of full-time male workers is lower than it was<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1>
> 40
> years ago.
>  
> American politics today compounds these problems. Even in the best of circumstances, the old free trade theory said only that the winners could compensate the losers, not that they would. And they haven't -- quite the opposite. Advocates of trade agreements often say that for America to be competitive, not only will wages have to be cut, but so will taxes and expenditures, especially on programs that are of benefit to ordinary citizens. We should accept the short-term pain, they say, because in the long run, all will benefit. But as John Maynard Keynes famously said in another context, "in the long run we are all dead." In this case, there is little evidence that the trade agreements will lead to faster or more profound growth.
>  
> Critics of the TPP are so numerous because both the process and the theory that undergird it are bankrupt. Opposition has blossomed not just in the United States, but also in Asia, where the talks have stalled.
>  
> By leading a full-on rejection of fast-track authority for the TPP, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, seems to have given us all a little respite. Those who see trade agreements as enriching corporations at the expense of the 99 percent seem to have won this skirmish. But there is a broader war to ensure that trade policy -- and globalization more generally
> -- is designed so as to increase the standards of living of most Americans.
> The outcome of that war remains uncertain.
>  
> In this series, I have repeatedly made two points: The first is that the high level of inequality in the United States today, and its enormous increase during the past 30 years, is the cumulative result of an array of policies, programs and laws. Given that the president himself has emphasized that inequality should be the country's top priority, every new policy, program or law should be examined from the perspective of its impact on inequality. Agreements like the TPP have contributed in important ways to this inequality. Corporations may profit, and it is even possible, though far from assured, that gross domestic product as conventionally measured will increase. But the well-being of ordinary citizens is likely to take a hit.
>  
> And this brings me to the second point that I have repeatedly emphasized:
> Trickle-down economics is a myth. Enriching corporations -- as the TPP would
> -- will not necessarily help those in the middle, let alone those at the bottom.
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/0ab1728f/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Mar  5 02:39:12 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:39:12 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Please pre-register by today for NETmundial 2014
 civil society coordination meeting
In-Reply-To: <11EEE2C4-4785-4E45-81D2-96E85D898313@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <11EEE2C4-4785-4E45-81D2-96E85D898313@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <5316D4A0.1020906@acm.org>

Hi,

I am assuming this is only for Developing country, least developed and 
indigenous peoples etc participants, and not for those from the 
so-called political north.

Is that correct?

avri


On 05-Mar-14 02:53, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> If anyone has already registered to attend NETmundial 2014 in São Paulo
> on 23-24 April, but has not got funding to support their travel (and
> needs it), and if you have not yet also separately registered to attend
> the civil society coordination meeting on the preceding day (22 April)
> and indicated a need for funding, *please do so today*.  The organisers
> of the coordination meeting aim to use the next week to try to sort out
> a list of people to whom travel funding can be extended, and to finalise
> this by 12 March when the official list of those accepted to attend the
> main NETmundial meeting will be released.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F!
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Sun Mar 16 15:23:10 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:23:10 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times
 (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
In-Reply-To: <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com>
References: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com> <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>

Thank you for this link. Stiglitz' comparison of trade agreements with 
the Opium wars is pretty cool.

Considering that the British fought for free trade to protect their 
profits from selling opium one might wonder what future generations 
think of the free flow of information.

jeanette



Am 16.03.14 19:01, schrieb michael gurstein:
> Perhaps the discussions on Internet Governance should be seen as a form
> of trade negotiation. I think it is clear that at least some of the
> participating "stakeholders" recognize the connection
> <http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf>.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thiru
> Balasubramaniam
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:36 AM
> To: a2k at lists.keionline.org; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> Subject: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog):
> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/
>
> THE GREAT
> DIVIDE<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/?module=BlogCategory&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Header>
>
> MARCH 15, 2014, 5:06 PM
>
> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>
> By JOSEPH E.
> STIGLITZ<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz/>
>
> Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over,
> but we should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade
> proposals in the works that threaten to put most Americans on the wrong
> side of globalization.
>
> The conflicting views about the agreements are actually tearing at the
> fabric of the Democratic
> Party<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts-doubt-on-pillar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>,
>
> though you wouldn't know it from President Obama's rhetoric. In his
> State of the Union address, for example, he blandly referred to "new
> trade partnerships" that would "create more jobs." Most immediately at
> issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which would bring
> together 12 countries along the Pacific Rim in what would be the largest
> free trade area in the world.
>
> Negotiations for the TPP began in 2010, for the purpose, according to
> the United States Trade
> Representative<http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>,
>
> of increasing trade and investment, through lowering tariffs and other
> trade barriers among participating countries. But the TPP negotiations
> have been taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked
> drafts<https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html> to
> guess at the proposed provisions. At the same time, Congress introduced
> a
> bill<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_would_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html>
>
> this
>
> year that would grant the White House filibuster-proof fast-track
> authority, under which Congress simply approves or rejects whatever
> trade agreement is put before it, without revisions or amendments.
>
> Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks -- and
> the history of arrangements in past trade pacts -- it is easy to infer
> the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesn't look good. There is a real
> risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and
> global elite at the expense of everyone else. The fact that such a plan
> is under consideration at all is testament to how deeply inequality
> reverberates through our economic policies.
>
> Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem:
> our gross mismanagement of globalization.
>
> Let's tackle the history first. In general, trade deals today are
> markedly different from those made in the decades following World War
> II, when negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came down
> on all sides, trade expanded, and each country could develop the sectors
> in which it had strengths and as a result, standards of living would
> rise. Some jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created.
>
> Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the
> world are already low. The focus has shifted to "nontariff barriers,"
> and the most important of these -- for the corporate interests pushing
> agreements -- are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain
> that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the
> regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to
> protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.
>
> What's more, those regulations were often put in place by governments
> responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements'
>
> new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory
> harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to
> promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization
> by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But
> when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a
> race to the bottom.
>
> When agreements like the TPP govern international trade -- when every
> country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations -- multinational
> corporations can return to the practices that were common before the
> Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972,
> respectively) and before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations
> everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be good
> for corporate profits.
>
> Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would
> be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big
> losers -- namely, the rest of us.
>
> These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade
> negotiations proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries are
> captured by corporate and financial interests. And when negotiations are
> secret, there is no way that the democratic process can exert the checks
> and balances required to put limits on the negative effects of these
> agreements.
>
> The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the TPP.
>
> What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of
> the worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an
> international tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also for
> alleged diminution of their potential profits as a result of regulation.
>
> This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried this
> tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking regulations, which
> have won accolades from the World Health Organization, unfairly hurt
> profits, violating a bilateral trade treaty between Switzerland and
> Uruguay. In this sense, recent trade agreements are reminiscent of the
> Opium Wars, in which Western powers successfully demanded that China
> keep itself open to opium because they saw it as vital in correcting
> what otherwise would be a large trade imbalance.
>
> Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used
> elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing
> countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the
> evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and
> controversial. And though these countries are the most obvious victims,
> the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well.
> American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some
> Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that
> subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government --
> getting rights as a "foreign"
>
> company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this
> is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence
> that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different
> countries on the basis of where their legal position in relation to the
> government is strongest.
>
> There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower
> the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of
> generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In
> the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into
> corporate coffers:
>
> thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have
> to be compensated. That's why we have a patent system. But the patent
> system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual
> protection with another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more
> available. I've
> written<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-reinforces-inequality/>
>
> before
>
> about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the
> genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up
> rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily.
>
> Trade agreements provide even more
>
> opportunities<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-reinforces-inequality/>
>
> for
>
> patent abuse.
>
> The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents
> suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell
> risky derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same
> kind of crisis that led to the Great Recession.
>
> In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP
> and agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this
> support possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has remained
> in circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.
>
> Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline's early
> years. Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the
> winners can always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even
> freer trade) is a win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on
> numerous assumptions, many of which are simply wrong.
>
> The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed that
> workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that the
> economy was at full employment, so that workers displaced by
> globalization would quickly move from low-productivity sectors (which
> had thrived simply because foreign competition was kept at bay through
> tariffs and other trade
>
> restrictions) to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high
> level of unemployment, and especially when a large percentage of the
> unemployed have been out of work long-term (as is the case now), there
> can't be such complacency.
>
> Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job but
> can't get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real risk
> that individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a protected
> sector will end up zero-productivity members of the vast ranks of the
> unemployed.
>
> This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts
> downward pressure on wages.
>
> We can argue over why our economy isn't performing the way it's supposed to
>
> -- whether it's because of a lack of aggregate demand, or because our
> banks, more interested in speculation and market manipulation than
> lending, are not providing adequate funds to small and medium-size
> enterprises. But whatever the reasons, the reality is that these trade
> agreements do risk increasing unemployment.
>
> One of the reasons that we are in such bad shape is that we have
> mismanaged globalization. Our economic policies encourage the
> outsourcing of jobs:
>
> Goods produced abroad with cheap labor can be cheaply brought back into
> the United States. So American workers understand that they have to
> compete with those abroad, and their bargaining power is weakened. This
> is one of the reasons that the real median income of full-time male
> workers is lower than it
> was<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1>
>
> 40
>
> years ago.
>
> American politics today compounds these problems. Even in the best of
> circumstances, the old free trade theory said only that the winners
> could compensate the losers, not that they would. And they haven't --
> quite the opposite. Advocates of trade agreements often say that for
> America to be competitive, not only will wages have to be cut, but so
> will taxes and expenditures, especially on programs that are of benefit
> to ordinary citizens. We should accept the short-term pain, they say,
> because in the long run, all will benefit. But as John Maynard Keynes
> famously said in another context, "in the long run we are all dead." In
> this case, there is little evidence that the trade agreements will lead
> to faster or more profound growth.
>
> Critics of the TPP are so numerous because both the process and the
> theory that undergird it are bankrupt. Opposition has blossomed not just
> in the United States, but also in Asia, where the talks have stalled.
>
> By leading a full-on rejection of fast-track authority for the TPP, the
> Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, seems to have given us all a little
> respite. Those who see trade agreements as enriching corporations at the
> expense of the 99 percent seem to have won this skirmish. But there is a
> broader war to ensure that trade policy -- and globalization more generally
>
> -- is designed so as to increase the standards of living of most Americans.
>
> The outcome of that war remains uncertain.
>
> In this series, I have repeatedly made two points: The first is that the
> high level of inequality in the United States today, and its enormous
> increase during the past 30 years, is the cumulative result of an array
> of policies, programs and laws. Given that the president himself has
> emphasized that inequality should be the country's top priority, every
> new policy, program or law should be examined from the perspective of
> its impact on inequality. Agreements like the TPP have contributed in
> important ways to this inequality. Corporations may profit, and it is
> even possible, though far from assured, that gross domestic product as
> conventionally measured will increase. But the well-being of ordinary
> citizens is likely to take a hit.
>
> And this brings me to the second point that I have repeatedly emphasized:
>
> Trickle-down economics is a myth. Enriching corporations -- as the TPP would
>
> -- will not necessarily help those in the middle, let alone those at the
> bottom.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> A2k mailing list
>
> A2k at lists.keionline.org <mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org>
>
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
>

From kichango at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 15:26:17 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 19:26:17 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
 <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com>

 Hello,


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello
>
> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>
>
> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model contradict the ideals of
> democracy"?  Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step
> in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to
> contradict the ideals of democracy???
>

Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to yourself
since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that sentence by re-typing
it instead of just reading the original one correctly. It reads: "does NOT
contradict..."


>
> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process,
> open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the
> policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
> intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be
> noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
> lead to politicization of the process.
>

This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with special interests
or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put the following in parentheses
in front of the word 'minorities': 'in the context of Internet policy'
precisely to signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about inclusiveness and
consensus building. I was trying to avoid limiting the reference to
democracy to its most common instances or simplistic understanding whereby
the winner (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests of the
minority into consideration while governing (think of Egypt and the
democratically elected President Morsi.) More precisely (and completely
unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I borrow the notion of "rights of
minorities" from Hannah Arendt in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I
hear you and will try to reconsider the wording.

Thanks,
Mawaki



> In India the intention to protect minority interests began with policies
> of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for minorities
> in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social justice has
> also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the Government's
> openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby groups, at least
> occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby
> group wins over the muted voice or silence of others. Certainly a global
> process can not create a situation where minorities would be neglected, but
> this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness
> of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we could say "all"
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/c2477402/attachment.htm>

From dominique.lacroix at ies-france.eu  Sun Mar 16 15:36:45 2014
From: dominique.lacroix at ies-france.eu (Dominique Lacroix)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:36:45 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times
 (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
In-Reply-To: <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>
References: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com> <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com> <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <5325FD4D.8040000@ies-france.eu>

At least an image for non French readers:
http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/08/30/creation-icann/

Abstract: Corn cannot expect justice from a court of chickens. (African
proverb)

@+, cheers, Dominique



Le 16/03/14 20:23, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
> Thank you for this link. Stiglitz' comparison of trade agreements with
> the Opium wars is pretty cool.
>
> Considering that the British fought for free trade to protect their
> profits from selling opium one might wonder what future generations
> think of the free flow of information.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> Am 16.03.14 19:01, schrieb michael gurstein:
>> Perhaps the discussions on Internet Governance should be seen as a form
>> of trade negotiation. [...]
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/a6211ad4/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 15:49:50 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:49:50 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times
 (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
In-Reply-To: <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>
References: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com> <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com> <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <00b501cf4150$e56def50$b049cdf0$@gmail.com>

Hmmm... the "Internet Freedom" campaign?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:23 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization

Thank you for this link. Stiglitz' comparison of trade agreements with the Opium wars is pretty cool.

Considering that the British fought for free trade to protect their profits from selling opium one might wonder what future generations think of the free flow of information.

jeanette



Am 16.03.14 19:01, schrieb michael gurstein:
> Perhaps the discussions on Internet Governance should be seen as a 
> form of trade negotiation. I think it is clear that at least some of 
> the participating "stakeholders" recognize the connection 
> <http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf>.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thiru 
> Balasubramaniam
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:36 AM
> To: a2k at lists.keionline.org; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> Subject: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog):
> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-g
> lobalization/
>
> THE GREAT
> DIVIDE<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/
> ?module=BlogCategory&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollectio
> n=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Header>
>
> MARCH 15, 2014, 5:06 PM
>
> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>
> By JOSEPH E.
> STIGLITZ<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz
> />
>
> Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over, 
> but we should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade 
> proposals in the works that threaten to put most Americans on the 
> wrong side of globalization.
>
> The conflicting views about the agreements are actually tearing at the 
> fabric of the Democratic 
> Party<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts
> -doubt-on-pillar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&re
> gion=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fs
> earch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>,
>
> though you wouldn't know it from President Obama's rhetoric. In his 
> State of the Union address, for example, he blandly referred to "new 
> trade partnerships" that would "create more jobs." Most immediately at 
> issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which would bring 
> together 12 countries along the Pacific Rim in what would be the 
> largest free trade area in the world.
>
> Negotiations for the TPP began in 2010, for the purpose, according to 
> the United States Trade 
> Representative<http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2
> 011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>,
>
> of increasing trade and investment, through lowering tariffs and other 
> trade barriers among participating countries. But the TPP negotiations 
> have been taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked 
> drafts<https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html> to 
> guess at the proposed provisions. At the same time, Congress 
> introduced a 
> bill<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiatio
> ns_bill_would_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.ht
> ml>
>
> this
>
> year that would grant the White House filibuster-proof fast-track 
> authority, under which Congress simply approves or rejects whatever 
> trade agreement is put before it, without revisions or amendments.
>
> Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks -- and 
> the history of arrangements in past trade pacts -- it is easy to infer 
> the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesn't look good. There is a real 
> risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and 
> global elite at the expense of everyone else. The fact that such a 
> plan is under consideration at all is testament to how deeply 
> inequality reverberates through our economic policies.
>
> Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem:
> our gross mismanagement of globalization.
>
> Let's tackle the history first. In general, trade deals today are 
> markedly different from those made in the decades following World War 
> II, when negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came 
> down on all sides, trade expanded, and each country could develop the 
> sectors in which it had strengths and as a result, standards of living 
> would rise. Some jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created.
>
> Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around 
> the world are already low. The focus has shifted to "nontariff barriers,"
> and the most important of these -- for the corporate interests pushing 
> agreements -- are regulations. Huge multinational corporations 
> complain that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most 
> of the regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a 
> reason: to protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.
>
> What's more, those regulations were often put in place by governments 
> responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements'
>
> new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after 
> regulatory harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an 
> innocent plan to promote efficiency. One could, of course, get 
> regulatory harmonization by strengthening regulations to the highest 
> standards everywhere. But when corporations call for harmonization, 
> what they really mean is a race to the bottom.
>
> When agreements like the TPP govern international trade -- when every 
> country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations -- multinational 
> corporations can return to the practices that were common before the 
> Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972,
> respectively) and before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations 
> everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be 
> good for corporate profits.
>
> Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would 
> be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big 
> losers -- namely, the rest of us.
>
> These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade 
> negotiations proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries 
> are captured by corporate and financial interests. And when 
> negotiations are secret, there is no way that the democratic process 
> can exert the checks and balances required to put limits on the 
> negative effects of these agreements.
>
> The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the TPP.
>
> What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of 
> the worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an 
> international tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also 
> for alleged diminution of their potential profits as a result of regulation.
>
> This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried 
> this tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking 
> regulations, which have won accolades from the World Health 
> Organization, unfairly hurt profits, violating a bilateral trade 
> treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay. In this sense, recent trade 
> agreements are reminiscent of the Opium Wars, in which Western powers 
> successfully demanded that China keep itself open to opium because 
> they saw it as vital in correcting what otherwise would be a large trade imbalance.
>
> Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being 
> used elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. 
> Developing countries pay a high price for signing on to these 
> provisions, but the evidence that they get more investment in return 
> is scant and controversial. And though these countries are the most 
> obvious victims, the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well.
> American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some 
> Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that 
> subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government 
> -- getting rights as a "foreign"
>
> company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, 
> this is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some 
> evidence that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into 
> different countries on the basis of where their legal position in 
> relation to the government is strongest.
>
> There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower 
> the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of 
> generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. 
> In the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into 
> corporate coffers:
>
> thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research 
> have to be compensated. That's why we have a patent system. But the 
> patent system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of 
> intellectual protection with another worthy goal: making access to 
> knowledge more available. I've 
> written<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectu
> al-property-reinforces-inequality/>
>
> before
>
> about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the 
> genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended 
> up rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily.
>
> Trade agreements provide even more
>
> opportunities<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-inte
> llectual-property-reinforces-inequality/>
>
> for
>
> patent abuse.
>
> The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents 
> suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell 
> risky derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same 
> kind of crisis that led to the Great Recession.
>
> In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP 
> and agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this 
> support possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has 
> remained in circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.
>
> Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline's early 
> years. Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the 
> winners can always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even 
> freer trade) is a win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on 
> numerous assumptions, many of which are simply wrong.
>
> The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed 
> that workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that 
> the economy was at full employment, so that workers displaced by 
> globalization would quickly move from low-productivity sectors (which 
> had thrived simply because foreign competition was kept at bay through 
> tariffs and other trade
>
> restrictions) to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high 
> level of unemployment, and especially when a large percentage of the 
> unemployed have been out of work long-term (as is the case now), there 
> can't be such complacency.
>
> Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job 
> but can't get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real 
> risk that individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a 
> protected sector will end up zero-productivity members of the vast 
> ranks of the unemployed.
>
> This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts 
> downward pressure on wages.
>
> We can argue over why our economy isn't performing the way it's 
> supposed to
>
> -- whether it's because of a lack of aggregate demand, or because our 
> banks, more interested in speculation and market manipulation than 
> lending, are not providing adequate funds to small and medium-size 
> enterprises. But whatever the reasons, the reality is that these trade 
> agreements do risk increasing unemployment.
>
> One of the reasons that we are in such bad shape is that we have 
> mismanaged globalization. Our economic policies encourage the 
> outsourcing of jobs:
>
> Goods produced abroad with cheap labor can be cheaply brought back 
> into the United States. So American workers understand that they have 
> to compete with those abroad, and their bargaining power is weakened. 
> This is one of the reasons that the real median income of full-time 
> male workers is lower than it 
> was<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conund
> rum.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&
> url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3
> Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit
> %26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1>
>
> 40
>
> years ago.
>
> American politics today compounds these problems. Even in the best of 
> circumstances, the old free trade theory said only that the winners 
> could compensate the losers, not that they would. And they haven't -- 
> quite the opposite. Advocates of trade agreements often say that for 
> America to be competitive, not only will wages have to be cut, but so 
> will taxes and expenditures, especially on programs that are of 
> benefit to ordinary citizens. We should accept the short-term pain, 
> they say, because in the long run, all will benefit. But as John 
> Maynard Keynes famously said in another context, "in the long run we 
> are all dead." In this case, there is little evidence that the trade 
> agreements will lead to faster or more profound growth.
>
> Critics of the TPP are so numerous because both the process and the 
> theory that undergird it are bankrupt. Opposition has blossomed not 
> just in the United States, but also in Asia, where the talks have stalled.
>
> By leading a full-on rejection of fast-track authority for the TPP, 
> the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, seems to have given us all a 
> little respite. Those who see trade agreements as enriching 
> corporations at the expense of the 99 percent seem to have won this 
> skirmish. But there is a broader war to ensure that trade policy -- 
> and globalization more generally
>
> -- is designed so as to increase the standards of living of most Americans.
>
> The outcome of that war remains uncertain.
>
> In this series, I have repeatedly made two points: The first is that 
> the high level of inequality in the United States today, and its 
> enormous increase during the past 30 years, is the cumulative result 
> of an array of policies, programs and laws. Given that the president 
> himself has emphasized that inequality should be the country's top 
> priority, every new policy, program or law should be examined from the 
> perspective of its impact on inequality. Agreements like the TPP have 
> contributed in important ways to this inequality. Corporations may 
> profit, and it is even possible, though far from assured, that gross 
> domestic product as conventionally measured will increase. But the 
> well-being of ordinary citizens is likely to take a hit.
>
> And this brings me to the second point that I have repeatedly emphasized:
>
> Trickle-down economics is a myth. Enriching corporations -- as the TPP 
> would
>
> -- will not necessarily help those in the middle, let alone those at 
> the bottom.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> A2k mailing list
>
> A2k at lists.keionline.org <mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org>
>
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
>


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Mar 16 15:52:14 2014
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 06:52:14 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba> <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <A1BC4A18DBED4A5487A8A7F97140605E@Toshiba>

yes, I agree with Avri and Stephanie -

instead of primary, fundamental, essential, or even important would work 
better than my original suggestion.

Also agree with Stephanie's suggestion to reiterate the values.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:38 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Avri Doria
Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to 
the NTIA announcement of March 14

+1 Avri.  I was thinking "fundamental" might work but I like "essential " 
better, I think.
I was wondering if it would be worthwhile also so reiterate the values that 
are mentioned in the press release, or a broader statement of values.  We 
need to hang on very strongly to the "free and open" etc. values, it does 
not go without saying in a multi-stakeholder model.


Stephanie

On 2014-03-16, at 8:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

>
>
> On 15-Mar-14 20:42, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 2. I wouldn’t describe the role of technical organisations as “primary”
>> – administrative perhaps?
>
>
> I do not think that the role of the IETF, is administrative.  Perhaps 
> Primary has a connotation of most important that you want to avoid, but 
> creating and maintaining the protocols that make the Internet possible is 
> a bit more than administration.
>
> Perhaps 'essential role' would work?  Does not rank things (many 
> ingredients can all be essential) but does admit that without them, we 
> have nothing.  Critical would be another possible word, but that word seem 
> to carry more connotations than essential.
>
> I support such a press release as long as it does not back off the notions 
> of multistakeholder particpatory democracy - albeit they are still 
> unfolding.  It is good to indicate that off course this does not work out 
> the same in all contexts (aka not one size fits all), but we ought to 
> persist in defining that full participation by all stakeholders in the 
> process is essential.
>
> avri
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t








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

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

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


From kichango at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 16:51:28 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:51:28 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] IGC press release in response to the NTIA
 announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <53257CE5.2060703@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-69tc6QiiuS7AE3m2cXSU2_Ht4U09x_qomP92bomc=8Q@mail.gmail.com>

 Parminder,

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> Mawaki
>
> Thanks for this effort.
>
> As often and variously discussed on this list, terms like 'equitable
> multistakholder policy development model' are very problematic unless we
> have some basic definition of what is meant here, and  it clearly excludes
> decision making on public policy issues...
>

I am not sure why you think decision making on public policy issues should
be excluded from mutistakeholder model or mechanisms, whatever their formal
or theoretical definition (but based on our common understanding or the
meaning we commonly ascribed to that term when we use it in this Ig
context.) Do you mean that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
government or intergovernmental bodies? If so, do you think this may have
been so in some period in the history of human societies but that may
evolve? And if so, would you accept the idea that such evolution may not
necessarily be clean cut but from start but fuzzy and laborious and
experimental at the beginning, and that it may be experimented in just one
or a few sectors before extending to other domains of governance?

I may agree that at this point in history, governments ratify public
policies, they have the final say, the ultimate authority to really enforce
them to the extent that those policies are really public. But why public
policies cannot be developed by all stakeholders (if that's your position)?
And developing policies isn't that part of policymaking?

If you do mean to suggest that policymaking is the exclusive role of the
government or intergovernmental bodies in this area of Ig, I'm afraid to
say that from my understanding of past discussions on this list, that is
unlikely to represent a consensus view. Then shall we go back there again?


> This particular language should therefore be struck out.
>
> Also, our communication , immediately after welcoming the decision and
> complimenting US gov for it, should upfront say that we are eager to know
> more details - especially about (1) whether it means that ICANN would no
> longer be under any contractual obligations with the US gov, and be in
> independent control of the root zone server, and (2) what happens to the
> issue of jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN and it being subject to US
> laws and such and (3) whether any conditions would be imposed in 'freeing
> ICANN' and if so, of what nature....
>

Well, it is my understanding that USG has not by this decision opened
negotiations with IGC and other Internet stakeholders. They were in a
position and just announced they are willing to relinquish. As could be
expected they want to have a say in or an eye on what will follow (no
transition to intergovernmental arrangement plus the fours principles as
guidelines.) For the rest they say ICANN has to develop a transition
proposal which should include the details of what will follow. So I think
apart from the 4 principles and the one litmus test they spelled out in the
announcement, all your questions above can only be answered in the
transition proposal to be developed with our participation and that of all
other stakeholders.

Mawaki


>  And that we look forward to complete and real globalisation of ICANN, in
> a manner that takes care of these issues..
>
> Also, a minor point, about one but last para, governance institutions do
> not have customers, only constituencies and the such...
>
> Thanks, parminder
>
>
>  On Sunday 16 March 2014 02:40 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>
>    Dear All,
>
>  Please find a draft of the above subject for your consideration and
> possible revisions. This is just a first crack attempted considering the
> speed of the events. I'm cc'ing BB as a peer organization with same
> concerns.
>
>  We would appreciate your inputs by Monday noon, UTC.
>  ---
>
>  IGC Draft Press Release
>
>  On March 14, U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to relinquish the
> oversight role it has played so far with the Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) regarding key Internet domain name
> functions.  As the announcement points out, this marks the final phase of
> the transition intended from the inception of ICANN toward the
> privatization of the domain name system (DNS) and its stewardship.
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) welcomes this decision and
> appreciates the opportunity to further evolve toward an equitable
> multistakeholder policymaking model for the governance of the Internet. In
> that regard, IGC pays a particular attention to the reiteration by NTIA of
> the necessity to involve all stakeholders in the process as well as in the
> desired outcome for fully completing the above transition. [If deemed
> relevant by members and subject to what the following actually entails:
> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the
> IANA services"] We also support the four principles put forward by NTIA to
> guide ICANN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a
> proposal to finalize this transition.
>
>
>  While acknowledging the primary role of Internet organizations and
> technical standard-setting bodies, IGC wishes to call attention to the
> utmost importance of giving due consideration to the concerns and views of
> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies. Indeed
> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy). It will be a
> constant challenge to make sure the term 'multistakeholder' is not reduced
> to mean 'anti-all-governments-of-the-world' but is rather open to embrace a
> 'pro-all-peoples-of-the-world' meaning.
>
>
>  Furthermore, a great deal of care should be given to designing the
> appropriate accountability mechanisms that fits a truly global governance
> institution - with a constituency and a customer base that actually is
> global. Related to that and more broadly, adequate responses must be found
> to the concern that while achieving effective accountability such
> institution (to emerge from this transition) should not be subject to any
> one national jurisdiction at the exclusion of others. It must be equally
> available and accessible to all Internet stakeholders.
>
>
>  Since ICANN is one of the co-conveners of the upcoming NETMundial, the
> Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (www.netmundial.br)
> to be held in Brazil this April, we advise that it includes in its
> consultation process for the transition proposal the propositions made in
> submissions, proceedings and outcomes of that meeting as regards the
> phasing out of the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the
> Internet's domain name system.
>
>
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus
>
> March xx, 2014.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/0568dc13/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 16:54:31 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:54:31 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtPwod2eXOH1=JeZokPwCJSZNwZz1Y5EQVP8HLjvHb1aaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fgskvhkwy11gvpowghvcvuyt.1394968082573@email.android.com> <CAHuaJtPwod2eXOH1=JeZokPwCJSZNwZz1Y5EQVP8HLjvHb1aaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v92qYkGA6r8=+odSAzxhFN6CJVb7sAbXZT+B36GrXo=4g@mail.gmail.com>

 Hi Fouad,
Thank you for these enlightening comments. That was helpful.

Mawaki


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mawaki,
>
> Thank you for taking the initiative and putting in the effort. In my
> personal view, IGC should be strongly concerned about the policy
> making mechanisms of both this change the its future thus this should
> be well mentioned.
>
> It is very unclear of how this model will evolve in the future. Will
> ICANN continue to be that body that manages the IANA function, what is
> the future of IANA then?
>
> Will IANA and ICANN be integrated into one organizational model and
> how will this organization be moved out of the US and that brings us
> back to the initial discussions on the IGC list about the various
> possible models including one where ICANN be located to Geneva and
> thereof act as an International organization and go into agreements,
> treaty or non-treaty bindings with the participation of various
> multilateral or bilateral, civil society, technical community and
> private sector organizations and bodies.
>
> It is also important to see how Governments are reacting to this and
> the Singapore ICANN Public Meeting will be a good space to see how the
> GAC responds or the statements that come out of there.
>
> This is a whole new process and we have to find a way to keep IGC
> involved inside out of the present and future of this transition where
> IGC also holds ground in all policy development processes of this new
> form of Internet Governance of the Domain and Naming Space of the
> Internet.
>
> As far as the issue of primary Internet organizations are concerned,
> that role has evolved to their present state and the Domain and IP
> owners, users, consumers or whatever the human role in the
> transactional value of domains be, is very primary and important so
> that cannot be left to just mentioning Internet organizations as
> primary, the human being or user or consumer is primary and thats who
> makes this whole system work and creates the demand for this political
> economy to operate.
>
> The new role of ICANN or any for the operation and management of an
> internationalized and independent domain name space beyond the control
> of any nation requires that stakeholders are clearly mentioned and
> brought into such a space on equal footing and grounds. That is not
> the case as such.
>
> The present ICANN community development processes do inhibit
> participation from across the world and though there are some
> productive efforts in place but they are not abundant.
>
> Mawaki, when you say [consideration to the concerns and views of
> non-technical and non-commercial stakeholders in Internet policies],
> that becomes the version of ICANN itself and a terminology that it
> uses to create a crack between the Non-Profit or Non-Private Sector
> groups that work consistently to find common grounds to work together
> but are subject to hierarchy.
>
> IF we look at the present state of the Board of ICANN, you will find a
> great deal of imbalance that I have already mentioned.
>
> The statement needs to be reviewed to represent a collective voice of
> IGC and in its own words rather than terminology incorporated from
> ICANN lingo.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/8845173f/attachment.htm>

From kichango at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 17:53:28 2014
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:53:28 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
 <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
 <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com>

 Dear Sivasubramanian,

Then my response still remains. Suffices to say there is an ideal of
democracy and there are democracies (actual instantiations of the former)
that do not live up to the ideal -- and I mentioned the most recent case of
Egypt but there are plenty of others. And if that can happen to something
called democracy and formally designed as such, you bet that can happen to
a multistakeholder governance structure. After all, what does
"multi-stake-holder" mean per se to make you think it will necessarily and
always function as a better democracy? Is there anything in the word that
suggests so? No. Can stakeholders turn out to form a smoke screen diverting
from the interests of the larger public or the people? You bet they can.

Mawaki

p.s. I'd agree with McTim to un-cc BB from now on, maybe...


On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Mawaki
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Hello,
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that
>>>> it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration
>>>> to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>>>
>>>
>>> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model
>>> contradict the ideals of democracy"?
>>> Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step in the
>>> further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict
>>> the ideals of democracy???
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to yourself
>> since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that sentence by re-typing
>> it instead of just reading the original one correctly. It reads: "does NOT
>> contradict..."
>>
>
> No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does not". The
> rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was making is that the
> premise underlying the condition was not valid. So I asked "Multi-stakeholder
> model is expanded democracy, the next step in the further evolution of
> democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict the ideals of
> democracy???"
>
> Thank you
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process,
>>> open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the
>>> policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
>>> intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be
>>> noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
>>> lead to politicization of the process.
>>>
>>
>> This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with special interests
>> or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put the following in parentheses
>> in front of the word 'minorities': 'in the context of Internet policy'
>> precisely to signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
>> minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about inclusiveness and
>> consensus building. I was trying to avoid limiting the reference to
>> democracy to its most common instances or simplistic understanding whereby
>> the winner (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
>> whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests of the
>> minority into consideration while governing (think of Egypt and the
>> democratically elected President Morsi.) More precisely (and completely
>> unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I borrow the notion of "rights of
>> minorities" from Hannah Arendt in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I
>> hear you and will try to reconsider the wording.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>>
>>> In India the intention to protect minority interests began with policies
>>> of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for minorities
>>> in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social justice has
>>> also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the Government's
>>> openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby groups, at least
>>> occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby
>>> group wins over the muted voice or silence of others. Certainly a global
>>> process can not create a situation where minorities would be neglected, but
>>> this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness
>>> of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we could say "all"
>>>
>>> Sivasubramanian M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> India +91 99524 03099
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140316/a52cc3af/attachment.htm>

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 18:22:50 2014
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 03:22:50 +0500
Subject: [URGENT] NTIA statement published for sign-on (was: Re:
 [bestbits] NTIA announcment)
In-Reply-To: <82F5E1B4-E26E-4DB4-B499-757D5B1CE9B3@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu>
	<53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu>
	<CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com>
	<3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com>
	<53249638.8010105@apc.org>
	<A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com>
	<7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com>
	<5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org>
	<3260E8E1-AE94-4F31-919D-D5280B9B646A@Malcolm.id.au>
	<82F5E1B4-E26E-4DB4-B499-757D5B1CE9B3@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtMR5nMVacq8P=UN-tBCsdML9vvO=Yu9YMDOCya+X61Ssw@mail.gmail.com>

Jeremy, one thing i've felt missing from both the Best Bits and IGC
statements are

full involvement of civil society etc from "both developing and
developed countries". The intention to be specific and include the
terms in the inverted commas is to assert that actual stakeholders can
participate from around the world.

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:
> Please now see http://bestbits.net/ntia-announcement/ where I have published
> the statement below with just two minor amendments to cover sensitivities
> about how we describe statements published through the Best Bits platform,
> viz. "adding "The undersigned" before "members of the Best Bits coalition"
> at the start, and the title changed from "Best Bits welcomes" to "Civil
> society representatives welcome".
>
> So that we can get in early for Monday morning, please endorse this joint
> statement as soon as possible if you agree with it.  The address again:
>
> http://bestbits.net/ntia-announcement/
>
> Thanks!
>
> On 16 Mar 2014, at 9:53 am, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote:
>
> On 16 Mar 2014, at 3:02 am, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
> DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key internet
> domain name functions
>
> Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the
> United States Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> Information Administration (NTIA) of its 'intent to transition key internet
> domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community.'
>
> NTIA's responsibility under current agreements means it has served as the
> "historic steward" of the DNS (internet domain name system). The fact that a
> single government currently plays this role, even if it has not been a
> particularly "hands-on" role, has been cause for concern and debate among
> governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>
> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a multi-stakeholder
> process that needs full involvement of civil society, governments, business
> and the internet technical community (to mention just some of the current
> stakeholders affected by internet decision making) and for requiring that
> the resulting transition plan maintains the openness of the internet.
>
> This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet
> governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of all
> who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting are still
> evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not in itself
> guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or protection of the
> public interest in the management of DNS and the root zone.  Nevertheless,
> this is a very constructive step, definitely in the right direction, and a
> unique opportunity to make progress in the evolution of the internet
> governance ecosystem. This is particularly important for stakeholders from
> developing countries.
>
> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the transition
> plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder processes in bringing
> together the larger community for the necessary consultations on how this
> transition should be undertaken. We also recommend that ICANN consider the
> submissions about how this transition can take place that were made to the
> upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance -
> www.netmundial.br - to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.
>
>
> I support us releasing this statement for sign-on, and can have it online in
> the next few hours, after leaving some more time for any amendments to be
> suggested.  Please follow up by 12pm Sunday GMT/UTC with any amendments if
> you can (ie. about 10 hours from now).  Thanks Anriette.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
> enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
> enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Sun Mar 16 23:13:25 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:43:25 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] The web we want
Message-ID: <53266855.7030907@ITforChange.net>

The World Wide Web turned 25 last week. After the invention of the 
printing press, this is the most defining development in the world of 
communication. Its impact is still growing and its full potential yet to 
be realised despite the many changes it has brought in its wake....

....Tim Berners-Lee maintains that there are a few principles which 
allowed the web, as a platform, to support such growth. “By design, the 
Web is universal, royalty-free, open and decentralised. Thousands of 
people worked together to build the early Web in an amazing, 
non-national spirit of collaboration; tens of thousands more invented 
the applications and services that make it so useful to us today, and 
there is still room for each one of us to create new things on and 
through the Web,” he declared.... in March 1989, a British scientist, 
Tim Berners-Lee, working at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear 
Research, submitted a rather simple sounding paper titled “Information 
Management: A Proposal” that gave birth to the World Wide Web. And how 
does he view his creation? Why did he not opt for a proprietary system 
where he would have minted billions? Why did he advocate an online 
“Magna Carta” to protect and enshrine the independence of the medium he 
created and the rights of its users worldwide? His answers capture his 
concerns. In an interview to the BBC he said: “As to making lots of 
money? If I’d made it something which was a proprietary system then it 
would not have taken off. The only reason it took off is because people 
were prepared to invest in it because it’s open and free…

....The forthcoming “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of 
Internet Governance,” to be held in São Paulo, Brazil, in April is a 
crucial development. In India, last month, a new coalition — Just Net 
Coalition (JNC) — was formed to provide inputs for this meeting. Its 
main arguments are: “a set of principles that should underpin the 
emergence of an Internet that advances human rights and social justice 
globally, and the reconfiguration of Internet governance into a truly 
democratic space. *These principles are based on a recognition that the 
Internet has become a vitally important social infrastructure that 
profoundly impacts our societies; and on the observation that 
opportunities for the many to participate in the very real benefits of 
the Internet, and to fully realise its enormous potential, are being 
thwarted by growing control of the Internet by politically, economically 
and socially dominant actors. Existing governance arrangements for the 
global Internet suffer from a lack of democracy; an absence of 
legitimacy, accountability and transparency; excessive corporate 
influence and regulatory capture; and too few opportunities for 
effective participation by people, especially from developing countries.”**
*
read the full article at 
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/Readers-Editor/the-web-we-want/article5792955.ece
read the JNC principles document at 
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-a-just-and-equitable-internet-for-all/110

regards
Guru

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/f543c8ad/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Mar  5 02:43:38 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:43:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <1146D0C6-9ABB-4DB5-8D4E-E0DE8664ED04@post.harvard.edu>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net> <1146D0C6-9ABB-4DB5-8D4E-E0DE8664ED04@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <5316D5AA.3060400@acm.org>

Hi,

The idea that Davos is a good example of multistakeholder process is, in 
my opinion a straw dog argument.  When most of us talk about 
multistakeholder, we do not talk about just a special handful of polite 
CS invitees, but an open door for multistakeholder actors.  Davos, again 
in my opinion, has nothing to do with multistakeholder policy making 
except for those who want to continue to use their influence within 
their own governments to the exclusion of others.


avri

On 03-Mar-14 15:44, David Allen wrote:
> Though I am seriously late to find - thank goodness for it.
>
> Terrifying, for me anyway.  Should be read widely.  So much thanks to Parminder for sending.
>
> David
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2014, at 1:02 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
>>
>> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
>>
>> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
>>
>> Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late, and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
>>
>> parminder
>

From dave at difference.com.au  Mon Mar 17 01:46:55 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:46:55 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au>


On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.

	Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way. 
	Google have revealed quite a few aspects of how they store search information, and how they use it, and what they have revealed is of significant value in assessing the privacy implications (and FWIW, they de-identify most search data after 6 months, or at least that was the case when I was last given a detailed briefing in 2012).
	But they have good reasons for keeping the details of their search algorithms secret that go beyond simple desire to keep the details of their business secret - an algorithm that is public is one that will be gamed by search engine optimization services, thus rendering the service significantly less useful. I don't see rendering googles searches vulnerable to SEO to be a useful public policy goal. I appreciate the idea of their basic algorithms being part of the cultural commons, but they have revealed their basic technique
	I'm not arguing against oversight. But expecting revelation of trade secrets, even when it destroys both the commercial advantage gained by their development, AND the utility of the service to the general public, seems to push that principle too far. 
	Cheers

		David
	
> 
> regards,
> Guru
> 
> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
> 
>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country. 
> 
> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
> 
> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.” 
> 
> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support. 
> 
> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
> 
> source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/9d294c72/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/9d294c72/attachment.sig>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 17 01:52:35 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:22:35 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com> <5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba> <13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba> <532598D1.90103@acm.org> <9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca> <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53268DA3.9040606@ITforChange.net>

well said, Mawaki
regards
Guru

On 03/17/2014 03:23 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Dear Sivasubramanian,
>
> Then my response still remains. Suffices to say there is an ideal of 
> democracy and there are democracies (actual instantiations of the 
> former) that do not live up to the ideal -- and I mentioned the most 
> recent case of Egypt but there are plenty of others. And if that can 
> happen to something called democracy and formally designed as such, 
> you bet that can happen to a multistakeholder governance structure. 
> After all, what does "multi-stake-holder" mean per se to make you 
> think it will necessarily and always function as a better democracy? 
> Is there anything in the word that suggests so? No. Can stakeholders 
> turn out to form a smoke screen diverting from the interests of the 
> larger public or the people? You bet they can.
>
> Mawaki
>
> p.s. I'd agree with McTim to un-cc BB from now on, maybe...
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M 
> <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Mawaki
>
>
>     On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango
>     <kichango at gmail.com <mailto:kichango at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hello,
>
>
>         On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M
>         <isolatedn at gmail.com <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Hello
>
>                 IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model
>                 to the extent that it does not contradict the ideals
>                 of democracy, including due consideration to the
>                 rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>
>
>             "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model
>             contradict the ideals of democracy"?
>             Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next
>             step in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room
>             for this model to contradict the ideals of democracy???
>
>
>         Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to
>         yourself since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that
>         sentence by re-typing it instead of just reading the original
>         one correctly. It reads: "does NOT contradict..."
>
>
>     No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does
>     not". The rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was
>     making is that the premise underlying the condition was not valid.
>     So I asked "Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the
>     next step in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for
>     this model to contradict the ideals of democracy???"
>
>     Thank you
>     Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>             "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a
>             Global process, open for participation from all
>             stake-holders, from every nation, the policies that would
>             emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The
>             intention behind this thought about the "rights"
>             of minorities might be noble, but as unintended
>             consequences, this idea of special attention could
>             lead to politicization of the process.
>
>
>         This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with
>         special interests or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put
>         the following in parentheses in front of the word
>         'minorities': 'in the context of Internet policy' precisely to
>         signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
>         minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about
>         inclusiveness and consensus building. I was trying to avoid
>         limiting the reference to democracy to its most common
>         instances or simplistic understanding whereby the winner
>         (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
>         whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests
>         of the minority into consideration while governing (think of
>         Egypt and the democratically elected President Morsi.) More
>         precisely (and completely unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I
>         borrow the notion of "rights of minorities" from Hannah Arendt
>         in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I hear you and will
>         try to reconsider the wording.
>
>         Thanks,
>         Mawaki
>
>             In India the intention to protect minority interests began
>             with policies of special attention, special laws and
>             reservation of seats for minorities in education, work and
>             politics and this move to ensure social justice has also
>             caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the
>             Government's openness to representation by Special
>             Interest and Lobby groups, at least occasionally, results
>             in a situation where the amplified voice of the lobby
>             group wins over the muted voice or silence of others.
>             Certainly a global process can not create a situation
>             where minorities would be neglected, but this needs to be
>             achieved in a manner that does not complicate the goodness
>             of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities" we
>             could say "all"
>
>             Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>     India +91 99524 03099 <tel:%2B91%2099524%2003099>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/48c08ed6/attachment.htm>

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Mon Mar 17 03:07:20 2014
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:37:20 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <53268DA3.9040606@ITforChange.net>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>
	<13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>
	<532598D1.90103@acm.org>
	<9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v8+4RbdUs7qKadvE+X9-7ktck2-K5x5P4OjUbQ=Yzp3GA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHyAo0H-5GQMQtYhoWADRTu38NuZbi3Hh7X5NaN1MxeK4-aK6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACTo+v-BdeMRW=ns4yghuFXz8Y=f6c-UshRWFxFN87AtmJ=bfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53268DA3.9040606@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0Hak+ETXtHCm5z_jKNZiLGe5i0V01xsgDTr=BtPkjhSRQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The revised draft expresses the opinion and good intentions of the IGC much
better. However some finer points:

the Caucus wishes to particularly emphasize the need for maintaining the
> openness and the global availability of the Internet while continuously
> improving not only on its security but also on its safety for all users
> around the globe.


Instead of "security but also on its safety" we could say, "security of
Internet at the same time preserving and furthering Civil Liberties for all
users around the globe",  ( 'safety' already forms part of 'security' ,
Civil Liberties are of greater concern ! )


 across the world, in developed as well as in developing regions.


"across the world" already includes 'developed' and 'developing' countries.
If developing countries are to be seated equally, why do we insist on
separation ?



> Indeed IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent
> that it is meant to be inclusive, bottom-up and consensus driven and, as
> such, it enhances democracy by seeking further participation from all
> people potentially impacted by its decision outcomes. It is our constant
> concern to make sure the term ‘multistakeholder’ is not reduced to mean
> ‘anti-intergovernmental’ or ‘private sector led’ but is rather positively
> open to embrace and actualize a ‘pro-all-peoples-of-the-world’ meaning.



The Internet Governance Caucus supports the multi-stakeholder policy making
model as an inclusive, bottom-up, consensus driven model that enhances
democracy by its inclusiveness of all people from around the world
potentially impacted by its policy decision outcomes. With faith we express
hope in the multi-stakeholder process,  which could be defined and
acknowledged as model different and clearly distinct from the
"inter-governmental" or "private sector led" models, but rather as a more
complete model, an inclusive model that positively embraces and actualizes
participation by all stakeholders from around the world for the benefit of
all the people of the world


( This change is suggested because the sentence "to make sure the term
...." could be misread to imply an accusation that term multi-stakeholder
is already or is being reduced to mean 'anti-intergovernmental' or 'private
sector led'.  I felt that IGC could welcome the current development with
more positive wording. This is an initial statement as a positive note, it
is intended to be a broad statement, so even a reference to any of IGC's
concerns could be broad and positive )



Finally, IGC is concerned that beyond phasing out NTIA’s current role,
> there remains the question of the jurisdiction to be applicable to the
> structure that will emerge from this transition. For such structure to be
> truly global, the Caucus feels it is important that it not be subject to
> one national jurisdiction but rather to an internationally recognized legal
> mechanism. It is in this context that appropriate accountability
> instruments should be carefully designed for the new governance institution.


(Ideas expressed in the above sentence could be conveyed more gently,
indicating a willingness to be patient) : The Internet Governance Caucus
expresses hope that the IANA function would be managed as a truly global
function, gradually with an internationally neutral judicial framework and
that the new governance institution would constantly evolve suitable and
appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms.

Sivasubramanian M


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  well said, Mawaki
> regards
> Guru
>
>
> On 03/17/2014 03:23 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>    Dear Sivasubramanian,
>
>  Then my response still remains. Suffices to say there is an ideal of
> democracy and there are democracies (actual instantiations of the former)
> that do not live up to the ideal -- and I mentioned the most recent case of
> Egypt but there are plenty of others. And if that can happen to something
> called democracy and formally designed as such, you bet that can happen to
> a multistakeholder governance structure. After all, what does
> "multi-stake-holder" mean per se to make you think it will necessarily and
> always function as a better democracy? Is there anything in the word that
> suggests so? No. Can stakeholders turn out to form a smoke screen diverting
> from the interests of the larger public or the people? You bet they can.
>
>  Mawaki
>
>  p.s. I'd agree with McTim to un-cc BB from now on, maybe...
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Dear Mawaki
>>
>>
>>  On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>      Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Hello
>>>>
>>>>  IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent
>>>>> that it does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due
>>>>> consideration to the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet
>>>>> policy)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model
>>>> contradict the ideals of democracy"?
>>>> Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step in the
>>>> further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict
>>>> the ideals of democracy???
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Sorry, you completely misread this... Or you are objecting to yourself
>>> since you're the one who took the 'NOT' out of that sentence by re-typing
>>> it instead of just reading the original one correctly. It reads: "does NOT
>>> contradict..."
>>>
>>
>>   No, It was just an omission while retyping. I did notice "does not".
>> The rest of what I wrote stands unchanged. The point I was making is that
>> the premise underlying the condition was not valid. So I asked "Multi-stakeholder
>> model is expanded democracy, the next step in the further evolution of
>> democracy. Is there room for this model to contradict the ideals of
>> democracy???"
>>
>>  Thank you
>>  Sivasubramanian M
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global
>>>> process, open for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation,
>>>> the policies that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced.
>>>> The intention behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be
>>>> noble, but as unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
>>>> lead to politicization of the process.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  This has nothing to do with 'special attention' or with special
>>> interests or with ethnic or cultural minorities (I put the following in
>>> parentheses in front of the word 'minorities': 'in the context of Internet
>>> policy' precisely to signal that this is not about cultural or ethnic
>>> minorities.) Suresh's reading is right; it is about inclusiveness and
>>> consensus building. I was trying to avoid limiting the reference to
>>> democracy to its most common instances or simplistic understanding whereby
>>> the winner (majority) takes all, in favor of the ideals of democracy
>>> whereby the majority still has to take the views or interests of the
>>> minority into consideration while governing (think of Egypt and the
>>> democratically elected President Morsi.) More precisely (and completely
>>> unrelated to Egypt in my mind), I borrow the notion of "rights of
>>> minorities" from Hannah Arendt in her analysis of totalitarianism. But I
>>> hear you and will try to reconsider the wording.
>>>
>>>  Thanks,
>>> Mawaki
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  In India the intention to protect minority interests began with
>>>> policies of special attention, special laws and reservation of seats for
>>>> minorities in education, work and politics and this move to ensure social
>>>> justice has also caused some imbalance in a certain way; In the US, the
>>>> Government's openness to representation by Special Interest and Lobby
>>>> groups, at least occasionally, results in a situation where the amplified
>>>> voice of the lobby group wins over the muted voice or silence of others.
>>>> Certainly a global process can not create a situation where minorities
>>>> would be neglected, but this needs to be achieved in a manner that does not
>>>> complicate the goodness of the process. Instead of mentioning "minorities"
>>>> we could say "all"
>>>>
>>>>  Sivasubramanian M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>> India +91 99524 03099 <%2B91%2099524%2003099>
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India +91 99524 03099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/bc6880e2/attachment.htm>

From dave at difference.com.au  Mon Mar 17 04:19:26 2014
From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:19:26 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <53232A19.30805@itforchange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <531DD7E1.8040508@cafonso.ca> <53232A19.30805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <8E380D18-5175-4A1F-9E5B-4EDFEFB1F4C0@difference.com.au>


On 15 Mar 2014, at 12:11 am, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Monday 10 March 2014 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> I think there is a basic misunderstanding related to the role of
>> private, free, non-mandatory services versus, for example, the required,
>> paid for, connectivity services we need to be on the Internet.
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> We may differ on issues and principles here, but I assure you that there is no misunderstanding. Our position is based on considerable thinking.
> 
> What is entirely left to the private sector, what gets provided as a public or social good, and what gets closely regulated even though provided privately are decisions that societies taken on the basis of many considerations. What was earlier a private good can become a public good as times change.

	Parminder, the use of economic terms with quite specific definitions in an informal way that has no connection to the real definition like this is not helpful. You use here the terms public good and social good as if they are synonyms, and they are not. 

> Prior to the industrial revolution, education was considered a rather private good - it was either a matter of some very exclusive privilege of the highest classes, or consisted of skills transferred within occupational groups like guilds. With the industrial revolution, many changes took place in social structures, in structure of family, work force and so on.... Soon later, education begun to see as seen as a kind of public good, and then as  a human right in the UN Declaration of Human Rights...
> 
> Sorry for the detour but, similar basic changes are taking place vis a vis the ongoing information/Internet revolution. One important element of this transformation are some new kinds of socio-technical platforms that mediated a huge swathe of social activities, which could span a whole sector - like global knowledge organising, instant media, general social networking, and so on. Such platforms have the character of natural monopolies - a fact that is proven.

	I know of no such proof. I'd be interested to see it. None of the areas you describe seem to be monopolies - there are certainly multiple services for knowledge organising, instant media, social networking etc. 
	Power law style concentration among a few major players, yes, but natural monopolies is a different story. 

> All this present a very new situation, and accordingly an assessment has to be made in public interest of the need and degree of regulation of such platforms.

	Certainly it is reasonable to assess the need and degree of regulation of a category of services. It is, of course, possible that the result of that consideration may be 'no' or 'not much needed'. 
	Though, FWIW, I'm not in that camp - I welcome the increased involvement of regulators in changes to major services that might substantially effect privacy, for example. That is very different from considering them a public good (which I think is just sloppy terminology) or a social good (which would imply public provision of the service). 

> Also, whether some of these services also need to be provided as public goods, or at least proactive public support (including with funds)  given for building local and/ or non-profit alternatives.

	Sure. But that is a matter for individual states to provide, not a matter for global regulatory bodies. 

> But the least that can certainly be said is that a completely unregulated commercial offering of these platforms, as huge global monopolies, and largely escaping regulation because of their global nature, coupled with extra-ordinary economic (and increasingly, political) might, is not not a sustainable situation. We can accept it now and take remedial measures, or do it after considerable social damage is done.
> 
> (In fact, as you say, since these services are free, they do not even constitute a commercial service agreement since no payment is made for them. Whereby we can also say that there can be no consumer rights vis a vis these services. Would you agree to such a proposition? )
> 
> All of which simply points to the fact that we are facing very new and unique situation in an increasingly Internet-mediated world. We may have to visit our policy and regulatory paradigms anew, and we should show the political openness to do so.

	Certainly new types of services invite us to consider their public policy implications. 

> Now, we may still disagree on which layers of the Internet requirer regulation and which not, but I just wanted to clarify that our position is well thought out and not a result as a mis- understanding.

	You are currently convincing me that your position is couched in the language of economics, but the argument is a poor one economically and  uses those terms too imprecisely or incorrectly to be very coherent. 

	I'm also very much convinced that Guru's call for making public all algorithms used is certainly not well thought out, and if it is an example of the application of a broader theory, it does that theory no credit. 

	Regards 

		David
> 
> regards
> 
> parminder
> 
>> 
>> Services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, are opt-in, not required
>> for the user to be on the Internet. And they are free to use, regardless
>> of what they do or don't with your visit to them. You visit at your own
>> risk and will.
>> 
>> Our broadband or mobile connection is paid, required if we wish to be on
>> the Internet, and subject to a provider-user contract regarding which we
>> can demand consumer and other rights.
>> 
>> I do not see how we can just tell Google to do what Guru requests. One
>> can just *not* use Google and still be on the Internet. Or can use just
>> a few components with due care regarding personal privacy configurations
>> if one wishes. Same with any other non-mandatory, free, opt-in service.
>> 
>> IMHO
>> 
>> --c.a.
>> 
>> On 03/10/2014 07:26 AM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an
>>> equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that
>>> its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds
>>> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a
>>> commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from
>>> privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought
>>> to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can
>>> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> Guru
>>> 
>>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>> 
>>>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to
>>> have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing
>>> anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition
>>> Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion
>>> (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of
>>> the country.
>>> 
>>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its
>>> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust
>>> watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for
>>> competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two
>>> years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its
>>> dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found
>>> violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent
>>> of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its
>>> annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3
>>> billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to
>>> nearly $5 billion.
>>> 
>>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google
>>> spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the
>>> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed
>>> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade
>>> Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for
>>> users and good for competition.”
>>> 
>>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint
>>> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first
>>> filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later.
>>> Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint.
>>> Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the
>>> Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>>> 
>>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will
>>> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain
>>> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is the
>>> software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the
>>> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>>> 
>>> source -
>>> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/0cc0717e/attachment.sig>

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Mar 17 04:28:46 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:28:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <5324D021.7080706@wzb.eu>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com> <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org> <5324D021.7080706@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <5326B23E.8040809@apc.org>

Dear Jeanette

What I meant was that should now focus much more on how the transition
should take place, and what we want to transition to, rather than just
making a convincing argument that the transition should happen.

This is probably just a subtle difference, as the NTIA announcement is
not a huge surprise. But there is still a big difference between civil
society having clear proposals for how we think these functions should
be managed, and by whom, and based on which principles as opposed to
just emphasising that we we want the status quo to change.

We might also want to differentiate between general principles for IG,
and specific principles for DNS and root zone management... but I need
to think about that more...and also think in a more differentiated way
about further evolution of the IG eccosystem.  Different types of
decisions and coordination need not be made in the same way,  or in the
same places. We always say that the system is distributed, and some of
us say that is a good thing. I think having the US oversight issues out
of the way makes it possible for us to spend more time taking about what
replaces it.

Civil society tends to lump all its concerns together, which is often
not very helpful. If we want to get concrete outputs from NetMundial we
need to propose solutions and new models which are achievable and
creative. This is not so easy. But there are a few on the table. If we
can get consensus, more or less, on those before the event it will make
us much more influential.

But I guess I am simply stating the obvious.

Anriette




On 16/03/2014 00:11, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
> Hi Anriette,
>
> why do you think we need to rethink the agenda for NetMundial? Hasn't
> the future of the IANA functions always been part of it?
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
>> Personally I think that the really interesting, but also challenging
>> outcome of this is that it means we need to rethink the NetMundial
>> Agenda and what we really want to get out of it.
>>
>> What is so good though is that the conversation with governments, and
>> private institutions, the technical community etc. can now focus on the
>> substance of how decisions are made, and how participation is ensured,
>> and accountability and transparency maintained, and what principles are
>> used in making these decisions.
>>
>> The location of ICANN in the US and the relationship with the US has
>> been a bottleneck in talking about 'enhanced coopration' etc. etc. This
>> is not going to make it easier.
>>
>> The challenge of dealing with governments who desire more control, and
>> those nongovernmental institutions involved in inernet governance who
>> are not sufficiently accountable, and not operating based on commonly
>> understood public interest and rights-based principles, remain.. and is
>> even greater actually. And a further challenge will be to ensure that
>> ICANN, while I think has been positively proactive, and in some senses
>> opportunistic (which is not a bad thing) since the NSA revelation, does
>> not, riding on increased legitimacy, unduly expand its scope, reach,
>> power.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> *DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key
>> internet domain name functions*
>>
>> Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the
>> United States Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and
>> Information Administration (NTIA) of its ‘intent to transition key
>> internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community
>> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'**
>>
>>
>> NTIA’s responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
>> the “historic steward” of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
>> fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
>> not been a particularly “hands-on” role, has been cause for concern and
>> debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>>
>> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
>> multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
>> governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
>> just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
>> making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
>> the openness of the internet.
>>
>> This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet
>> governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive participation of
>> all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting are
>> still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not
>> in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or
>> protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root
>> zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in the
>> right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the
>> evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly
>> important for stakeholders from developing countries.
>>
>> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>> Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
>> transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
>> processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
>> consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
>> recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
>> can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global Meeting
>> on the Future of Internet Governance ‒ www.netmundial.br
>> <http://www.netmundial.br/> ‒ to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/1b70d5a7/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Mar 17 06:59:15 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:29:15 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times
 (Opinionator Blog): On the Wrong Side of Globalization
In-Reply-To: <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>
References: <CANi=seJLB8fApz3KMpEY+hoECCwH-YDsF=ZGBfN9+KabUALWHg@mail.gmail.com> <003801cf4141$c027d7b0$40778710$@gmail.com> <5325FA1E.6070900@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <5326D583.3030302@itforchange.net>


On Monday 17 March 2014 12:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Thank you for this link. Stiglitz' comparison of trade agreements with 
> the Opium wars is pretty cool.
>
> Considering that the British fought for free trade to protect their 
> profits from selling opium one might wonder what future generations 
> think of the free flow of information.

Yes, but maybe even the present generations can start thinking, like 
what is the US 'Internet freedom' agenda i about, and how a new global 
political system of elite co-option going by the name of MSism has to do 
with global economic extraction, as for instance Aspen Institute report 
so intricately weaves MSism into the idea of one global digital economy...

parminder
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> Am 16.03.14 19:01, schrieb michael gurstein:
>> Perhaps the discussions on Internet Governance should be seen as a form
>> of trade negotiation. I think it is clear that at least some of the
>> participating "stakeholders" recognize the connection
>> <http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf>. 
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thiru
>> Balasubramaniam
>> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:36 AM
>> To: a2k at lists.keionline.org; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
>> Subject: [A2k] Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times (Opinionator Blog):
>> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>>
>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/ 
>>
>>
>> THE GREAT
>> DIVIDE<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-great-divide/?module=BlogCategory&version=Blog%20Post&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Header> 
>>
>>
>> MARCH 15, 2014, 5:06 PM
>>
>> On the Wrong Side of Globalization
>>
>> By JOSEPH E.
>> STIGLITZ<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/joseph-e-stiglitz/>
>>
>> Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over,
>> but we should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade
>> proposals in the works that threaten to put most Americans on the wrong
>> side of globalization.
>>
>> The conflicting views about the agreements are actually tearing at the
>> fabric of the Democratic
>> Party<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/politics/biden-remark-casts-doubt-on-pillar-of-us-trade-agenda.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%23%2Fdemocrats%2Btpp%2F>, 
>>
>>
>> though you wouldn't know it from President Obama's rhetoric. In his
>> State of the Union address, for example, he blandly referred to "new
>> trade partnerships" that would "create more jobs." Most immediately at
>> issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which would bring
>> together 12 countries along the Pacific Rim in what would be the largest
>> free trade area in the world.
>>
>> Negotiations for the TPP began in 2010, for the purpose, according to
>> the United States Trade
>> Representative<http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>, 
>>
>>
>> of increasing trade and investment, through lowering tariffs and other
>> trade barriers among participating countries. But the TPP negotiations
>> have been taking place in secret, forcing us to rely on leaked
>> drafts<https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html> to
>> guess at the proposed provisions. At the same time, Congress introduced
>> a
>> bill<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_would_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html> 
>>
>>
>> this
>>
>> year that would grant the White House filibuster-proof fast-track
>> authority, under which Congress simply approves or rejects whatever
>> trade agreement is put before it, without revisions or amendments.
>>
>> Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks -- and
>> the history of arrangements in past trade pacts -- it is easy to infer
>> the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesn't look good. There is a real
>> risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and
>> global elite at the expense of everyone else. The fact that such a plan
>> is under consideration at all is testament to how deeply inequality
>> reverberates through our economic policies.
>>
>> Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem:
>> our gross mismanagement of globalization.
>>
>> Let's tackle the history first. In general, trade deals today are
>> markedly different from those made in the decades following World War
>> II, when negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came down
>> on all sides, trade expanded, and each country could develop the sectors
>> in which it had strengths and as a result, standards of living would
>> rise. Some jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created.
>>
>> Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the
>> world are already low. The focus has shifted to "nontariff barriers,"
>> and the most important of these -- for the corporate interests pushing
>> agreements -- are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain
>> that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the
>> regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to
>> protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.
>>
>> What's more, those regulations were often put in place by governments
>> responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade 
>> agreements'
>>
>> new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory
>> harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to
>> promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization
>> by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But
>> when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a
>> race to the bottom.
>>
>> When agreements like the TPP govern international trade -- when every
>> country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations -- multinational
>> corporations can return to the practices that were common before the
>> Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972,
>> respectively) and before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations
>> everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be good
>> for corporate profits.
>>
>> Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would
>> be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big
>> losers -- namely, the rest of us.
>>
>> These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade
>> negotiations proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries are
>> captured by corporate and financial interests. And when negotiations are
>> secret, there is no way that the democratic process can exert the checks
>> and balances required to put limits on the negative effects of these
>> agreements.
>>
>> The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the 
>> TPP.
>>
>> What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of
>> the worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an
>> international tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also for
>> alleged diminution of their potential profits as a result of regulation.
>>
>> This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried this
>> tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking regulations, which
>> have won accolades from the World Health Organization, unfairly hurt
>> profits, violating a bilateral trade treaty between Switzerland and
>> Uruguay. In this sense, recent trade agreements are reminiscent of the
>> Opium Wars, in which Western powers successfully demanded that China
>> keep itself open to opium because they saw it as vital in correcting
>> what otherwise would be a large trade imbalance.
>>
>> Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used
>> elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing
>> countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the
>> evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and
>> controversial. And though these countries are the most obvious victims,
>> the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well.
>> American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some
>> Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that
>> subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government --
>> getting rights as a "foreign"
>>
>> company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this
>> is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence
>> that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different
>> countries on the basis of where their legal position in relation to the
>> government is strongest.
>>
>> There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower
>> the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of
>> generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In
>> the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into
>> corporate coffers:
>>
>> thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have
>> to be compensated. That's why we have a patent system. But the patent
>> system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual
>> protection with another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more
>> available. I've
>> written<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-reinforces-inequality/> 
>>
>>
>> before
>>
>> about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the
>> genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up
>> rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered 
>> unnecessarily.
>>
>> Trade agreements provide even more
>>
>> opportunities<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/how-intellectual-property-reinforces-inequality/> 
>>
>>
>> for
>>
>> patent abuse.
>>
>> The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents
>> suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell
>> risky derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same
>> kind of crisis that led to the Great Recession.
>>
>> In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP
>> and agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this
>> support possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has remained
>> in circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.
>>
>> Free trade was a central tenet of economics in the discipline's early
>> years. Yes, there are winners and losers, the theory went, but the
>> winners can always compensate the losers, so that free trade (or even
>> freer trade) is a win-win. This conclusion, unfortunately, is based on
>> numerous assumptions, many of which are simply wrong.
>>
>> The older theories, for instance, simply ignored risk, and assumed that
>> workers could move seamlessly between jobs. It was assumed that the
>> economy was at full employment, so that workers displaced by
>> globalization would quickly move from low-productivity sectors (which
>> had thrived simply because foreign competition was kept at bay through
>> tariffs and other trade
>>
>> restrictions) to high-productivity sectors. But when there is a high
>> level of unemployment, and especially when a large percentage of the
>> unemployed have been out of work long-term (as is the case now), there
>> can't be such complacency.
>>
>> Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job but
>> can't get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real risk
>> that individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a protected
>> sector will end up zero-productivity members of the vast ranks of the
>> unemployed.
>>
>> This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts
>> downward pressure on wages.
>>
>> We can argue over why our economy isn't performing the way it's 
>> supposed to
>>
>> -- whether it's because of a lack of aggregate demand, or because our
>> banks, more interested in speculation and market manipulation than
>> lending, are not providing adequate funds to small and medium-size
>> enterprises. But whatever the reasons, the reality is that these trade
>> agreements do risk increasing unemployment.
>>
>> One of the reasons that we are in such bad shape is that we have
>> mismanaged globalization. Our economic policies encourage the
>> outsourcing of jobs:
>>
>> Goods produced abroad with cheap labor can be cheaply brought back into
>> the United States. So American workers understand that they have to
>> compete with those abroad, and their bargaining power is weakened. This
>> is one of the reasons that the real median income of full-time male
>> workers is lower than it
>> was<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry653%23%2Fbonior+tpp&_r=1> 
>>
>>
>> 40
>>
>> years ago.
>>
>> American politics today compounds these problems. Even in the best of
>> circumstances, the old free trade theory said only that the winners
>> could compensate the losers, not that they would. And they haven't --
>> quite the opposite. Advocates of trade agreements often say that for
>> America to be competitive, not only will wages have to be cut, but so
>> will taxes and expenditures, especially on programs that are of benefit
>> to ordinary citizens. We should accept the short-term pain, they say,
>> because in the long run, all will benefit. But as John Maynard Keynes
>> famously said in another context, "in the long run we are all dead." In
>> this case, there is little evidence that the trade agreements will lead
>> to faster or more profound growth.
>>
>> Critics of the TPP are so numerous because both the process and the
>> theory that undergird it are bankrupt. Opposition has blossomed not just
>> in the United States, but also in Asia, where the talks have stalled.
>>
>> By leading a full-on rejection of fast-track authority for the TPP, the
>> Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, seems to have given us all a little
>> respite. Those who see trade agreements as enriching corporations at the
>> expense of the 99 percent seem to have won this skirmish. But there is a
>> broader war to ensure that trade policy -- and globalization more 
>> generally
>>
>> -- is designed so as to increase the standards of living of most 
>> Americans.
>>
>> The outcome of that war remains uncertain.
>>
>> In this series, I have repeatedly made two points: The first is that the
>> high level of inequality in the United States today, and its enormous
>> increase during the past 30 years, is the cumulative result of an array
>> of policies, programs and laws. Given that the president himself has
>> emphasized that inequality should be the country's top priority, every
>> new policy, program or law should be examined from the perspective of
>> its impact on inequality. Agreements like the TPP have contributed in
>> important ways to this inequality. Corporations may profit, and it is
>> even possible, though far from assured, that gross domestic product as
>> conventionally measured will increase. But the well-being of ordinary
>> citizens is likely to take a hit.
>>
>> And this brings me to the second point that I have repeatedly 
>> emphasized:
>>
>> Trickle-down economics is a myth. Enriching corporations -- as the 
>> TPP would
>>
>> -- will not necessarily help those in the middle, let alone those at the
>> bottom.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> A2k mailing list
>>
>> A2k at lists.keionline.org <mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org>
>>
>> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
>>


From anriette at apc.org  Mon Mar 17 07:31:49 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:31:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] NTIA announcment
In-Reply-To: <5326B23E.8040809@apc.org>
References: <53237849.604@wzb.eu> <53237B16.1060202@wzb.eu> <CAOa=Yc2fXeVDVHCMzTFHs1BFdcQR5p5HjFmr_M_cESX0pREg6w@mail.gmail.com> <76B8A695-5263-43E7-A27C-C57770D30D51@gmail.com> <3362A131-5F5A-4B0A-A89F-C85275BBCC62@gmail.com> <53249638.8010105@apc.org> <A6FDA787-A8DE-43E7-9153-7935F5C83DF7@gmail.com> <7ED858F5-DCAC-4255-A39B-5B823DA72AE6@gmail.com> <5324A3B0.8070205@apc.org> <5324D021.7080706@wzb.eu> <5326B23E.8040809@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5326DD25.7020403@apc.org>

Also.. just adding more to this.

The other 'agenda' challenge is that already surveillance seems to have
moved into the background. Probably because NetMundial submissions asked
us to respond on principles, and roadmap for future evolution of IG
ecosystem.

With this transition on the table we can go into the 'future evolution'
into more detail, but  what about coming up with mechanisms for
addressing mass surveillance?

Anriette


On 17/03/2014 10:28, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear Jeanette
>
> What I meant was that should now focus much more on how the transition
> should take place, and what we want to transition to, rather than just
> making a convincing argument that the transition should happen.
>
> This is probably just a subtle difference, as the NTIA announcement is
> not a huge surprise. But there is still a big difference between civil
> society having clear proposals for how we think these functions should
> be managed, and by whom, and based on which principles as opposed to
> just emphasising that we we want the status quo to change.
>
> We might also want to differentiate between general principles for IG,
> and specific principles for DNS and root zone management... but I need
> to think about that more...and also think in a more differentiated way
> about further evolution of the IG eccosystem.  Different types of
> decisions and coordination need not be made in the same way,  or in
> the same places. We always say that the system is distributed, and
> some of us say that is a good thing. I think having the US oversight
> issues out of the way makes it possible for us to spend more time
> taking about what replaces it.
>
> Civil society tends to lump all its concerns together, which is often
> not very helpful. If we want to get concrete outputs from NetMundial
> we need to propose solutions and new models which are achievable and
> creative. This is not so easy. But there are a few on the table. If we
> can get consensus, more or less, on those before the event it will
> make us much more influential.
>
> But I guess I am simply stating the obvious.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
> On 16/03/2014 00:11, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Anriette,
>>
>> why do you think we need to rethink the agenda for NetMundial? Hasn't
>> the future of the IANA functions always been part of it?
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>>
>>
>>> Personally I think that the really interesting, but also challenging
>>> outcome of this is that it means we need to rethink the NetMundial
>>> Agenda and what we really want to get out of it.
>>>
>>> What is so good though is that the conversation with governments, and
>>> private institutions, the technical community etc. can now focus on the
>>> substance of how decisions are made, and how participation is ensured,
>>> and accountability and transparency maintained, and what principles are
>>> used in making these decisions.
>>>
>>> The location of ICANN in the US and the relationship with the US has
>>> been a bottleneck in talking about 'enhanced coopration' etc. etc. This
>>> is not going to make it easier.
>>>
>>> The challenge of dealing with governments who desire more control, and
>>> those nongovernmental institutions involved in inernet governance who
>>> are not sufficiently accountable, and not operating based on commonly
>>> understood public interest and rights-based principles, remain.. and is
>>> even greater actually. And a further challenge will be to ensure that
>>> ICANN, while I think has been positively proactive, and in some senses
>>> opportunistic (which is not a bad thing) since the NSA revelation, does
>>> not, riding on increased legitimacy, unduly expand its scope, reach,
>>> power.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> *DRAFT Best Bits welcomes NTIA announcement on transition of key
>>> internet domain name functions*
>>>
>>> Members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the announcement made by the
>>> United States Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>>> Information Administration (NTIA) of its 'intent to transition key
>>> internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder
>>> community
>>> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions>.'**
>>>
>>>
>>> NTIA's responsibility under current agreements means it has served as
>>> the "historic steward" of the DNS (internet domain name system). The
>>> fact that a single government currently plays this role, even if it has
>>> not been a particularly "hands-on" role, has been cause for concern and
>>> debate among governments and other stakeholders for more than a decade.
>>>
>>> We commend the NTIA for committing to the transition to a
>>> multi-stakeholder process that needs full involvement of civil society,
>>> governments, business and the internet technical community (to mention
>>> just some of the current stakeholders affected by internet decision
>>> making) and for requiring that the resulting transition plan maintains
>>> the openness of the internet.
>>>
>>> This is however not trivial, as mechanisms for democratising internet
>>> governance, and ensuring really effective and inclusive
>>> participation of
>>> all who are affected by  internet policy making and standard setting
>>> are
>>> still evolving. A transition away from US government oversight does not
>>> in itself guarantee inclusion, transparency and accountability or
>>> protection of the public interest in the management of DNS and the root
>>> zone.  Nevertheless, this is a very constructive step, definitely in
>>> the
>>> right direction, and a unique opportunity to make progress in the
>>> evolution of the internet governance ecosystem. This is particularly
>>> important for stakeholders from developing countries.
>>>
>>> We recommend that ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
>>> and
>>> Numbers), to which the NTIA is entrusting the development of the
>>> transition plan, look beyond its own internal multi-stakeholder
>>> processes in bringing together the larger community for the necessary
>>> consultations on how this transition should be undertaken. We also
>>> recommend that ICANN consider the submissions about how this transition
>>> can take place that were made to the upcoming NetMundial: Global
>>> Meeting
>>> on the Future of Internet Governance - www.netmundial.br
>>> <http://www.netmundial.br/> - to be held in Brazil in late April 2014.
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/6f627567/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Mar 17 09:55:14 2014
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:55:14 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] CGI.br contributions to NetMundial
Message-ID: <5326FEC2.7080602@cafonso.ca>

Hi people,

[with apologies for duplicates]

Please find attached in plain text three contributions sent by CGI.br to
NetMundial:

- Evolution and Internationalization of ICANN

- The Importance of a Multistakeholder Approach to Cybersecurity
Effectiveness

- Privacy and Surveillance

There is another contribution which simply reproduces our 10 Principles,
which are well known, so no need to replicate here.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

==================

-------------- next part --------------
The Importance of a Multistakeholder Approach to Cybersecurity Effectiveness

    Area: ROADMAP FOR THE FURTHER EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE ECOSYSTEM
    Entitled by: Cristine Hoepers, Klaus Steding-Jessen, Henrique Faulhaber
    Region: Brazil
    Organization: Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br
    Sector: Other
    Keywords: Multistakeholder, Internet Ecosystem, Cyber security, Internet Security, CERTs

Abstract

Most Internet security threats are increasingly complex, affecting multiple sectors at the same time, and requiring coordinated efforts to be detected and effectively mitigated. This is specially true to incidents involving botnets, spam, malware and DDoS. In the past 20 years several multistakeholder forums and initiatives that deal with Internet security threats were created - most of them have been very successful in bringing different sectors together to mitigate security incidents and counter cybercrime. All these efforts highlighted that the effectiveness depends on cooperation among different stakeholders, and that cybersecurity can't be achieved via a single organization or structure. Also, governments need to participate more in security forums and improve cooperation with other stakeholders. New forums and initiatives should not replace existing structures; they should aim at leveraging and improving the multistakeholder structures already in place today.

Document

The Importance of a Multistakeholder Approach to Cybersecurity Effectiveness

1. Introduction
============================

Most Internet security threats are increasingly complex, affecting multiple stakeholders at the same time, and requiring coordinated efforts to be detected and mitigated.  This is specially true to incidents involving botnets, spam, malware and DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks.

The scenario gets more complicated when critical national infrastructures are connected to the Internet, becoming exposed to the same vulnerabilities as other systems, and can be attacked by the same tools or techniques used for attacks in other contexts.

The protection of critical infrastructures and government networks connected to the Internet have both Internet security and defense aspects - the protection of these infrastructures is done most of the time by government organizations.  What is worrisome is that we are increasingly seeing purely Internet security issues being perceived by governments as purely defense issues.  This is leading to a scenario where, for example, the vital cooperation already existing among CERTs (Computer Emergency Response Teams) with National Responsibility being undermined by a tendency to move all existing Internet security capabilities into government or intelligence organizations.

The Internet ecosystem's security, stability and resilience should remain multistakeholder. The cooperation among different sectors and stakeholders, already existing today, is key to mitigate most of the current threats.

In the remainder of this proposal, we will briefly discuss several current multistakeholder forums and initiatives, pointing out their strengths, and bringing to attention issues that need to be considered when discussing a framework to improve the multistakeholder approach in order to achieve more effective cybersecurity.

2. Existing Multistakeholder Forums
============================

There are some international forums that already exist today and that congregate different stakeholders, cooperating to handle security incidents and mitigate specific threats.  Most of these forums were created to mitigate specific categories of attacks or threats.  As nowadays the threat landscape changed and there is a prevalence of what is technically referred to as combined threats, most of these organizations are dealing with similar security issues.  What follows is a description of each one of these organizations.

2.1. FIRST - Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams

FIRST is the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams - http://first.org/.  A Computer Security and Incident Response Team (CSIRT), sometimes also referred as CERT, is a service organization that is responsible for receiving, reviewing, and responding to computer security incident reports and activity. Their services are usually performed for a defined constituency that could be a parent entity such as a corporate, governmental, or educational organization; a region or country; a research network; or a paid client (Source: http://www.cert.org/incident-management/csirt-development/csirt-faq.cfm).

The first CSIRT, the CERT Coordination Center, was created in November 1988, after the security incident known as "Internet worm" or "Morris worm" brought major portions of the Internet to its knees, and made clear the need to more coordinated efforts to respond to security incidents on the Internet.  After this incident, several other teams were created. The FIRST was formed in 1990 in response to a second worm, the "Wank worm", and this incident highlighted the need for better communication and coordination among teams of different organizations.

FIRST is an international confederation of trusted computer incident response teams who cooperatively handle computer security incidents and promote incident prevention programs.  FIRST brings together a wide variety of CSIRTs from around the globe including educational, commercial, vendor, national, government and military.  FIRST members develop and share technical information, tools, methodologies, processes and best practices, and use their combined knowledge, skills and experience to promote a safer and more secure Internet environment.

2.2.  CSIRTs with National Responsibility and the NatCSIRT Annual Meeting

Since 2006, the CERT(R) Coordination Center (CERT/CC) has been hosting an annual technical meeting for CSIRTs with national responsibility. This meeting provides an opportunity for the organizations responsible for protecting the security of nations, economies, and critical infrastructures to discuss the unique challenges they face while fulfilling this role.  As a result of these meetings, an online Forum is maintained throughout the year, as well as a list of CSIRTs with National Responsibility: http://www.cert.org/incident-management/national-csirts/national-csirts.cfm

It is noteworthy that there are very different models of National CSIRTs, ranging from not for profit, to academic, to government teams. Also, several countries have more than one team, demonstrating the complexity of increasing cybersecurity and performing incident handling at a national level.

2.3. APWG

APWG (http://apwg.org/) was founded in 2003 as the Anti-Phishing Working Group, at which time its mission was to counter phishing attacks.  But, as the technology evolved, APWG is not focused only on phishing anymore, but on mitigating other attacks that are used to perpetrate cybercrime.  APWG has more than 2000 members and research partners worldwide, from financial institutions, retailers, solutions providers, ISPs, telcos, CSIRTs, universities, defense contractors, law enforcement agencies, trade groups, treaty organizations and government agencies.

2.4. MAAWG - The Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group

MAAWG is The Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group (http://www.maawg.org/) and brings the messaging industry together to work collaboratively and to successfully address the various forms of messaging abuse, such as spam, viruses, denial-of-service attacks and other messaging exploitations.  To accomplish this, MAAWG develops initiatives in the three areas necessary to resolve the messaging abuse problem: industry collaboration, technology, and public policy.

2.5. ISOC - The Internet Society

ISOC - The Internet Society (http://www.internetsociety.org/) - is an organization dedicated to ensuring that the Internet stays open and transparent. It has initiatives in Internet policy, technology standards, and future development.  ISOC has a special project called "Combating Spam Project", in partnership with MAAWG, dedicated to demonstrating to policy makers, clearly and effectively, the tools and industry partnerships that are available to tackle spam.

3. Examples of Successful Multistakeholder International and National Initiatives
============================

In the past few years, CSIRTs, Network Operators and members of the aforementioned forums became involved in some specific projects and working groups aimed at mitigating specific big threats, implementing best practices or better understanding the Internet threat environment.  In this section we are going to describe some of these successful multistakeholder initiatives.

3.1. The Conficker Working Group

Starting in late 2008, and continuing through June of 2010, a coalition of security researchers worked to resist an Internet borne attack carried out by malicious software known as Conficker. This coalition became known as "The Conficker Working Group", and seemed to be successful in a number of ways, not the least of which was unprecedented cooperation between organizations and individuals around the world, in both the public and private sectors (Source: http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/).

The work of this group involved members of Internet Governance Bodies, Software and Hardware Vendors, Content providers, Universities and Research Centers, and was vital to mitigate the worm's malicious payloads and to help clean systems throughout the Internet.  A Lessons Learned document can be find in the previously listed homepage.

3.2. DNS-changer Working Group

The DNS Changer Working Group (DCWG - http://www.dcwg.org/) was an ad hoc group of subject matter experts, and included members from organizations such as Georgia Tech, Internet Systems Consortium, Mandiant, National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance, Neustar, Spamhaus, Team Cymru, Trend Micro, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham.  The work of the DCWG was coordinated with FBI investigations, and received help from several National CERTs and ISPs.

This working group was created to help remediate Rove Digital's malicious DNS servers.  The botnet operated by Rove Digital altered user DNS settings, pointing victims to malicious DNS in data centers in Estonia, New York, and Chicago. The malicious DNS servers would give fake, malicious answers, altering user searches, and promoting fake and dangerous products. Because every web search starts with DNS, the malware showed users an altered version of the Internet.

The cooperation among all these stakeholders made it possible to gradually alert and help disinfect the end users' devices, without disrupting their access to the Internet.

3.3. Multistakeholder initiatives at a National level

There are several multistakeholder initiatives at a National level. In this section we will briefly describe some of these initiatives.

3.3.1. The Dutch Cyber Security Council

The Dutch Cyber Security Council has 15 members from government, industry, and the scientific community, for a total of three scientists, six public sector and six private sector representatives. The Council is supported by an independent secretariat.  The Council oversees the Dutch National Cyber Security Strategy and offers both solicited and unsolicited advice to the Dutch government and society. The role that the Council played during the DigiNotar incident, for example, demonstrated the effectiveness of this kind of public-private partnership in the digital domain.

In July 2013, the Council issued an advice on the new National Cyber Security Strategy, published in October 2013. The advice specifically focused on the need for close cooperation and coordination in the field of incident detection and response. Only through active information sharing, timely response and seamless collaboration can a secure digital environment be established.

Source:

https://www.ncsc.nl/english/current-topics/news/best-practices-in-computer-network-defense.html

3.3.2. The Japanese Cyber Clean Center

The Cyber Clean Center (CCC) is a core organization taking a role to promote bot cleaning and prevention of re-infection of users' computers, which were once infected by bots, based on cooperation among government, software vendors and ISPs.  The Cyber Clean Center has a Steering Committee and three working groups in the layer below: the bot countermeasure system operation group; the bot program analysis group; and the bot infection prevention promotion group.

Source:

https://www.ccc.go.jp/en_ccc/

3.3.3. CGI.br Port 25 Management Initiative

For a long time, Brazil was present on most spam rankings as a top spam relaying country. Determined to reverse this situation, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) has conducted, since 2005, a number of activities, such as academic studies and technical analyses, which lead to the adoption of Port 25 management as the most effective measure to be taken to prevent spammers from abusing the Brazilian broadband infrastructure. This initiative was lead by CGI.br's Anti-Spam Working Group (CT-Spam), which provided a forum where different stakeholders were able to meet.

For almost 20 years, Brazil has developed a model of multistakeholder Internet governance. Therefore, a measure of such importance as the blocking of outgoing port 25 traffic in residential networks could not be adopted without all sectors affected being asked to contribute to this decision-making process.

Bringing together the experience of more than a dozen telecom companies, thousands of Internet service providers, representatives of civil society and the academic community, as well as the technical staff of CGI.br, the process of adopting Port 25 management was broadly discussed.  This was specially important because the implementation required a concerted effort, with e-mail service providers making sure they offered Message Submission via a different port (587), and migrated at least 90% of their users' base before broadboand providers could block outbound port 25 traffic.

It is also important to highlight that both the National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) and the Ministry of Justice have played a key role in providing support for the telecom companies and the consumer protection entities respectively. Anatel signed a Cooperation Agreement with CGI.br, which gave the telecom companies legal grounds to proceed with the adoption. The Ministry of Justice, on the other hand, published a Technical Note explaining the benefits of such measures for consumers.

As a result of this initiative, Brazil is no longer listed as one of the top spam relaying countries in the world, according to several public rankings.

Source:

http://www.nic.br/imprensa/clipping/2013/midia182.htm
http://www.cert.br/docs/palestras/certbr-citel-itu-isoc2013.pdf

3.3.4. CERT.br - Computer Emergency Response Team Brazil

CERT.br is the Computer Emergency Response Team Brazil, maintained by NIC.br, a not for profit organization created to implement the decisions and projects designed by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br.  All CERT.br activities take into account the need to involve all stakeholders to successfully increase the level of security and incident handling capacity of the networks connected to the Internet in Brazil.

Besides doing Incident Handling activities, CERT.br also works to increase security awareness in the Brazilian community, maintaining an early warning project with the goal of identifying new trends and correlating security events, as well as alerting Brazilian networks involved in malicious activities. CERT.br also helps new Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) to establish their activities in the country.

A clear example of the success of this approach is the Brazilian Distributed Honeypots Project, which, through a network of distributed honeypots in the Brazilian Internet space, increases the capacity of incident detection, event correlation and trend analysis in the country.  These honeypots are passive sensors that provide valuable situational awareness, without collecting production traffic neither performing any type of surveillance.  This project has sensors in more than 40 Brazilian partner organizations, ranging from government and energy sectors, to academia, ISPs and Telecommunication Providers.

Source:

http://www.cgi.br/english/activities/
http://www.nic.br/english/about/
http://www.cert.br/about/
http://honeytarg.cert.br/honeypots/

4. The need for improvement of the multistakeholder collaboration in cybersecurity
============================

Achieving a satisfactory level of Internet Security is not an easy task, but the experience accumulated by several successful initiatives demonstrates that, in order to be effective, any cybersecurity initiative needs to involve several stakeholders. More than that, the reality is that more often than not, the security measures need to be taken by systems administrators, network operators or security professionals in their own networks. However, cooperation with others is key to be able to understand the threats and better evaluate the effectiveness of their actions.

In the document "Conficker Working Group: Lessons Learned" (http://www.confickerworkinggroup.org/wiki/uploads/Conficker_Working_Group_Lessons_Learned_17_June_2010_final.pdf), published in January 2011, although the word "multistakeholder" is not used, some of the success factors listed point to the importance of cooperation and the involvement of different stakeholders.  Here are some examples:

-    Utilize a trust model; the scope of the working group needs to be a manageable size to be effective and include those directly affected, and yet large enough to include a broader universe of those impacted.

-    Incorporate a consensus model without hierarchy to allow the group to adapt and respond to fast changing conditions.

-    Gain the participation and support of key governing and regulatory bodies.

-    Formalize communications with stakeholder groups vs. relying on social networks.

These four points bring to light issues like the rapid change of the threat landscape, the need for rapid communication, the involvement and support of governments and the fact that several stakeholders need to cooperate.

Although the Conficker Working Group was very successful, as well as other initiatives listed in the previous section, there are still some stakeholders that could improve their cooperation. For example:

-    Network Operator Groups (NOGs) and Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) should be more involved with security issues.  There are some areas like routing security (and newly proposed protocols like RPKI or SBGP) or DNSSEC that need worldwide adoption to be effective.  RIRs could also work more closely with the CSIRT community to improve the WHOIS system to help the incident handling process.

-    Software vendors need to become involved and be more pro-active; after all, most of the security problems we face today are software-related problems.  The real challenge is to improve software security and get the software industry to a more mature level.

-    The governments, including military and intelligence sectors, in addition to traditional security and defense strategies, need to improve their awareness of the multistakeholder nature of the Internet and the vital importance of the cooperation to address security threats.  They need to participate more in the national and international security forums and improve cooperation with other stakeholders.

Considering government cyber security strategies, it is noteworthy that about 130 parties, including public and private parties, knowledge institutions and social organisations, were involved in the drafting of the Dutch "National Cyber Security Strategy 2 - From awareness to capability" (NCSS2) (https://www.ncsc.nl/english/current-topics/news/new-cyber-security-strategy-strengthens-cooperation-between-government-and-businesses.html). The strategy starts with the following statement:

    "We are moving from structures to coalitions in which all parties -- national and international -- are represented in order to achieve supported standards."

And adds that

    "The correlation between security, freedom and social-economic benefits proposed in the NCSS2 is a dynamic balance that is intended to be realised in a constantly open and pragmatic dialogue between all stakeholders, both national and international. (...) In order to bring the dialogue about cyber security between the various stakeholders to a new level of maturity, the following three management areas are of the utmost importance: (self) regulation, transparency and knowledge development."

This is a good example of the recognition of the importance of a multistakeholder approach to the Internet ecosystem's security, stability and resilience.

5. Recommendations
============================

As stated before, achieving a satisfactory level of Internet Security is not an easy task, and the multistakeholder initiatives previously discussed are good examples of frameworks that can effectively deal with cybersecurity current and emerging issues.  Therefore, it is recommended that all national and international organizations involved with Internet Governance, for instance, Local Governments, RIRs, United Nations, European Union, ISOC Chapters, among others, should take the following into consideration:

1.    The experience accumulated by the several successful initiatives described in this contribution demonstrates that, in order to be effective, any cybersecurity initiative depends on cooperation among different stakeholders, and it can't be achieved via a single organization or structure.

2.    There are stakeholders that still need to become more involved, like network operators and software developers.

3.    Governments, including military and intelligence sectors, in addition to traditional security and defense strategies, need to improve their awareness of the multistakeholder nature of the Internet and the vital importance of cooperation to address security threats.  They need to participate more in the national and international security forums and improve cooperation with other stakeholders.

4.    There is room and a need for new forums and initiatives, but they should not replace existing structures.  Any new initiative should aim at leveraging and improving the multistakeholder structures already in place today.



-------------- next part --------------
Evolution and Internationalization of ICANN

    Area: ROADMAP FOR THE FURTHER EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE ECOSYSTEM
    Entitled by: Flavio Rech Wagner
    Region: Brazil
    Organization: CGI.br - Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
    Sector: Other
    Keywords: ICANN, internationalization, multistakeholderism, accountability, IANA functions

Abstract

CGI.br understands that ICANN’s evolution shall be guided by two main tenets: (1) ICANN has to be fully internationalized and has to develop a proper framework for both vertical and horizontal accountability; and (2) ICANN's institutional evolution shall seek a better equilibrium among all stakeholders and among all countries. Instead of specific proposals, this document highlights goals to be pursued after the NetMundial meeting and posits requirements to be observed and questions to be asked in the course of that quest. CGI.br assumes that ICANN shall remain the responsible institution for the assignment of names and numbers and understands that keeping ICANN as focal point for those activities is the best alternative for the assurance of a unique and global Internet. It does not mean that ICANN’s operation and governance system are to remain unchallenged. Instead, it means that it is better to count on a fully established system to be enhanced than to start a whole new system.
Document

Evolution and Internationalization of ICANN 

CGI.br - Brazilian Internet Steering Committee  (Note 1)

Summary

The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) understands that ICANN’s evolution shall be guided by these main tenets: (1) the organization has to be fully internationalized and it has to develop a proper framework for both vertical and horizontal accountability; and (2) ICANN's institutional evolution shall seek a better equilibrium among all stakeholders, as well as among the different countries. Instead of listing a set of specific proposals, this document highlights some objectives to be pursued after the NetMundial meeting and posits some requirements to be observed and some questions to be asked in the course of that quest. It bears on the assumption that ICANN should be the responsible institution within the Internet governance ecosystem for the assignment of names and numbers, including the full spectrum of the IANA functions. CGI.br understands that the maintenance of ICANN as a focal point for those activities is the best alternative for the assurance of a unique and global Internet, for it has the established technical capacity and the policy-making mechanisms that can keep the Internet running without compromising its availability in the furtherance of current global Internet governance discussion fora, such as NetMundial and IGF. It does not mean that ICANN’s operation and its governance system are to remain unchallenged. It simply means that it is better to count on a fully established system to be enhanced than to start a whole system from scratch.

1. The role for an internationalized ICANN

CGI.br supports the measures that have been taken in regard to ICANN's internationalization, but understands that so far they have been focused mainly on the operational level of its mandate (Note 2). Far more important than those efforts is placing ICANN under a new international legal-institutional framework that replaces the current contract (the Affirmation of Commitments) with the USA government and removes ICANN's direct or indirect subordination to the US legal system (Note 3). In realistic terms, this goal may be achieved within a 5 to 10 years time frame, following a sequence of steps that are still to be devised, following a roadmap for the international Internet governance ecosystem that is expected as one of the outcomes of multistakeholder fora like NetMundial, IGF, and others.

One of the main IANA functions is the global coordination of the allocation and registration of IP addresses. ICANN is still legally responsible for this function, but its practical execution is completely decentralized by the global structure of five different Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). These RIRs have in turn created a coordination forum - the Number Resource Organization (NRO). The RIRs and the NRO coordinate the process of distribution of IPv4 and IPv6 blocks, also taking into account a well designed and consensual strategy for the transition of the number resources. CGI.br strongly believes that this is a very good example of how other IANA functions can be decentralized and delegated, without removing the overall institutional responsibility of ICANN over those functions. It also serves as a very suitable model for the internationalization of IANA functions.

The sound solution for the internationalization of ICANN - considering that it should keep all its current responsibilities - has to encompass the discussion of adequate solutions for the effective internationalization of all IANA functions (not only the allocation and registration of IP addresses). In the search of an adequate legal and institutional framework that replaces the current contract with the US government, it will be extremely relevant to decide which entity, or set of entities, will be made responsible for the management of the root zone file, such as to guarantee its stability, security, and reliability. An adequate direction for that matter can be the assignment of this task to a set of international entities (in a way similar to the RIRs/NRO structure for IP allocation) that are already responsible for other aspects of the Internet governance, that operate in a well-balanced multistakeholder model, and that bear the required technical qualifications.

A third aspect of the evolution of ICANN towards its internationalization is its accountability. ICANN is currently accountable to the US government, according to the goals and mechanisms that are established by the AoC. In theoretical terms, those present to the NetMundial meeting shall bear in mind the fact that there are different sorts of accountability that depend mostly on the nature of the relations and of the interest of the actors in a specific institutional setting (Note 4). Within democratic political institutions, for instance, vertical and horizontal accountability are two different components of overall accountability (Note 5). Vertical accountability means that each specific organ within the ICANN chart has to be fully accountable to its direct constituents. Horizontal accountability means that, within the ICANN system, every single organ has to be fully accountable to all others as well. And all of the system has to be fully accountable to Internet users in general, in a reliable, open and transparent, and timely manner. How can ICANN, in an international legal and institutional framework different from the AoC and from the current bylaws that guide the corporation, be accountable to the public interest, represented by all end users of the Internet, in a way that is consistent with universally accepted principles of use and governance of the Internet which respect fundamental human rights and promote social, economic, and cultural progress of citizens of all countries?

An adequate roadmap for the evolution of the global Internet governance ecosystem, together with a roadmap for the internationalization of ICANN, must firstly look for this set of principles for the use and governance of the Internet, from which the definition of accountability mechanisms for ICANN will be possible. In a certain way, the set of stakeholder groups that are present in ICANN also represents the international public interest, expressed by a set of principles for use and governance of the Internet - or, with the appropriate improvements in the structure and operation of ICANN, they may be able to represent this public interest. A possible way for improving the accountability of ICANN is to assign the oversight responsibility within the new institutional setting to be proposed as an outcome of NetMundial to already existent stakeholder groups within the ICANN system. Another approach would be the assignment of that oversight to entities outside ICANN, as long as they are recognized as representative of the international public interest. A clear advantage of this second approach is the avoidance of an overlapping reality, in which the organization responsible for policy making is also responsible for the oversight of policy implementation.

2. Leveling the playfield among stakeholders and countries

In a paper presented at the 8th Annual GigaNet Symposium, Laura DeNardis and Mark Raymond classified multistakeholderism according to the type of stakeholders involved (States, firms, non-governmental organizations, and/or international organizations) and the nature of authority relations enshrined within a specific political community (hierarchical, polyarchic, or anarchic). The matrix derived from those two variables yields thirty three different forms of multistakeholderism (Note 6). CGI.br has its own model of governance - recognized as a best practice within several different fora, including the Internet Governance Forum and ICANN itself. It has successfully created a decalogue of fundamental principles for the use and governance of the Internet in Brazil. Both CGI.br's governance model and its decalogue can inform the way forward for the global governance of the Internet, not only because they represent the commitment of all stakeholders involved, but also because it expressly deals with cultural and socio-economic developmental issues that can serve the purposes and interests of developing and the least developed countries in global governance at large (Note 7).

A first step on that direction shall be the establishment of a serious and permanent discussion about the appropriate contours of multistakeholderism for Internet governance in the 21st Century. Bearing in mind the study conducted by DeNardis and Raymond, CGI.br believes that the best model comprises all of the relevant actors within their scope of action and is polyarchic in form (the one in which authority is neither centralized within a single entity nor inexistent).

Despite being polyarchic in nature, ICANN multistakeholder governance sometimes can tilt between anarchy (in which economic and political power outside institutional constraints is the enforcing mechanism) and hierarchy (in which the Board or the GAC, for instance, imposes restrictions on the action of other stakeholders). In light of that abstract reality, analyses of the structure and operation of ICANN have revealed various problems regarding an inadequate balance among the various stakeholder groups. Examples of problems are: the inadequacy of the mechanism for governments’ participation via the GAC; the very small influence of civil society upon the final decisions of the GNSO and the Board; and the capture of ICANN by the domain industry (both registries and registrars). To these problems we must add the lack of balance among different countries, whereby developing countries (both their governments and representatives of their civil societies and private sectors) have a very small influence on the policy cycle. The current structure of ICANN, including the Board, the SOs and the ACs, with their respective roles, and in particular the daily operation of these bodies, do not seem to achieve an adequate balance among all stakeholder groups and among all countries (Note 8).

Although the improvements regarding transparency and accountability suggested by the ATRT 1, and revised and enhanced by the ATRT 2, go in the right direction, they lack enough generality, since they basically reflect priorities and conditions expressed by the AoC. A revision of those recommendations under a much more general framework could bring important enhancements to the structure and operation of ICANN. 

In the following, we suggest some specific paths to be followed. This is merely illustrative and shall be taken as a point of departure for further discussions:

1.    Even if the GAC keeps its role as an advisory body to the Board, government representatives should participate effectively in the policy development processes in the GNSO. Governments' influence on those policies only when they are being considered by the Board for final deliberation should be avoided, as it represents an unduly advantage over other stakeholder groups.

1.    The weight of registries and registrars in the policy development processes should be reduced. The current structure of “houses” in the GNSO gives them the same weight as all other stakeholder groups together, while, in fact, those other groups represent the interests of all other sectors of the society and are thus better placed to represent the public interest.

3.    The structure and the role of the ALAC should be revised, since there is a clear redundancy among the ALAC and stakeholder groups in the GNSO; also the ALAC does not take part in the policy development processes in the GNSO. If the ALAC is meant to represent, in theory, the interests of all Internet users, who should be considered as very important stakeholders (maybe even the most important ones), this seems highly contradictory. Besides, the participation of individuals and entities in the ALAC neither follows transparent rules nor guarantees an adequate global representation of users.

4.    The composition of the Board should be revised in order to reflect a better balance among stakeholder groups, considering the ultimate goals of ICANN, which should be materialized by a set of principles adopted by the organization for the use and governance of the Internet. In particular, in order to reinforce its multistakeholder nature, the number of Board seats allocated by the NomCom could be reduced, thus increasing the slots for Board members directly elected by the SOs.

5.    Sufficient funds should be provided to promote and ensure the participation of individuals representing stakeholder groups from developing countries. Mechanisms should be implemented to ensure their effective participation in the different organizations, committees, and working groups of ICANN.

6.    Once an adequate and balanced participation of all stakeholder groups (including governments) and all countries in the policy development processes in the GNSO is ensured, the role of the Board regarding the final approval of those policies should be revised. The Board should have only an oversight role over those processes, in a way to guarantee that they follow the adequate balance among all stakeholder groups and that the public interest has been served. The guidance for the Board shall derive from the overarching set of principles for the use and governance of the Internet to which ICANN should be committed. Also the Board accountability and transparency mechanisms should be improved, in such a way that the global society is able to check that the actions of the Board are consistent with the safeguard of those principles.

 

Notes:

1. CGI.br thanks the collaboration of Mr. Diego Rafael Canabarro in the drafting of this document. He is a PhD candidate in Political Science and Research Assistant to the Center for International Studies on Government (CEGOV) at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil.

2. ERMERT, M. ICANN CEO Wants To Shift “Centre Of Gravity” Away From US. IP Watch, April 9, 2013. Available in: www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/09/icann-ceo-wants-to-shift-centre-of-gravity-away-from-us/.

3. FROOMKIN, F. Almost Free: An Analysis of ICANN's ‘Affirmation of Commitments’ (January 20, 2011). Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Vol. 9, 2011; University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-01. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1744086.

4. LERNER, J. S.; TETLOCK, P. E. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological bulletin, v. 125, p. 255–275, 1999.

5. O'DONNELL, G. (1999), "Horizontal accountability in new democracies", in Schedler, A.G., O Diamond and M F Planner (editors).

6. DENARDIS, Laura; RAYMOND, Mark, Thinking Clearly About Multistakeholder Internet Governance (November 14, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2354377 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2354377. See also DENARDIS, Laura. “Multistakeholderism and the Internet Governance Challenge to Democracy,” Harvard International Review Vol. XXXIV, N. 4, Spring 2013.

7. http://www.cgi.br/regulamentacao/pdf/resolucao-2009-003-pt-en-es.pdf

8. FELD, H. Structured to Fail: ICANN and the Privatization Experiment. Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction. A. THIERER and C. W. CREWS. Washington, DC, USA, Cato Institute, (2003). --- PALFREY, J. G. The End of the Experiment: How ICANN's Foray into Global Internet Democracy Failed. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 93; Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2004-02. Available in: <http://ssrn.com/abstract=487644>. --- HUSTON, G. Opinion: ICANN, the ITU, WSIS, and Internet Governance. The Internet Protocol Journal, v. 8, n. 15-28, 2012. --- KLEIN, H.; MUELLER, M. What to Do About ICANN: A Proposal for Structural Reform. April 5, 2005. Available in: <http://Internetgovernance.org/pdf/igp-icannreform.pdf>. --- LACROIX, D. (2013a). Governance of Top Level Domains (TLDs): a failed revolution? 1st International Conference on Internet Science, Brussels, April 9-11, pages 133-141, 2013.


-------------- next part --------------
Privacy and Surveillance

    Area: COMBINED INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND ROADMAP
    Entitled by: Veridiana Alimonti
    Region: Brazil
    Organization: Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br
    Sector: Other
    Keywords: right to privacy, human rights, surveillance, fundamentals

Abstract

Information and Communications Technologies provide powerful tools for collecting, storing and processing personal data. Such tools can be used by both the private sector and the Government, and in both cases they should comply with strict standards on the protection of the fundamental right to privacy. Edward Snowden’s denunciations of mass spying by the United States National Security Agency gave rise to a global general interest in the surveillance of citizens worldwide. Although PRISM-based programs and rules have been a reality for many years, Snowden's episode does not lose its relevance. States, civil society organizations and technical community has now a precious opportunity to set a needed path for the construction of global solutions to this issue within the Internet governance ecosystem. The purpose of this submission is to contribute to this discussion.

Document

In addition to enhancing the dissemination of ideas and opinions and allowing for the creation and manifestation of diversity, Information and Communications Technologies also provide powerful tools for collecting, storing and processing personal data. Such tools can be used by both the private sector and the Government, and in both cases they must comply with strict standards on the protection of the fundamental right to privacy.

Internationally, this right is provided for in article XII of the Declaration of Human Rights, which protects one from any arbitrary or illegal interference with its private life and assures the protection of law against such interferences and attacks. Similar provision is given under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, among others.

Different national and regional laws also include the right to privacy with more or less details. In Brazil, privacy protection is an indelible clause (“cláusula pétrea”) of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988, covering the inviolability of the communications (articles 5, X and XII), and is part of the Brazilian Internet Use and Governance Principles approved by CGI.Br - Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil, (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee) in 2009. Its strict relation with the exercise of freedom of expression, with the access to the information and with the base principles of a democratic society was reaffirmed in the recent UN resolution “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age”, proposed by Brazil and Germany and supported by 55 co-sponsorsing countries.

Edward Snowden’s denunciations of mass spying by the United States National Security Agency gave rise to a global general interest in the surveillance of citizens worldwide. Although PRISM-based programs and rules have been a reality for many years, such as the Echelon Program or the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), Snowden's episode is quite relevant for some reasons.

The first and most important of them is the opportunity that is opened for reviewing such practices in reply to the coordinated international reaction. The second one is the increased understanding that any reaction implies recognition of the global scale of the network, and therefore the international effort to set parameters and control mechanisms for surveillance. The third one consists of evidences that the fight against spying goes through telecommunication networks, different Internet layers, hardware and software. The question, therefore, is how to protect the privacy and the personal data in this context.

The current international Internet governance ecosystem lacks a proper body with authority to discuss and coordinate solutions from the perspective of human rights protection. Multistakeholder spaces such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) or the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) could be structured as bodies responsible for coordinating discussions and actions and entitled to make recommendations to other international bodies towards more effective privacy protection globally.

Given the current international law and human rights perspective, CGI.br also considers that the definition of parameters for ensuring privacy of communications must be based on some fundamentals:

- Initially, the principle of legality must be respected, i.e., the need for clear and accurate legal provision for cases where communication surveillance is admitted must be ensured. These law provisions must confer such powers only upon authorization by the competent judicial authority and for a legitimate aim clearly delimited that serves to the protection of relevant legal interests required in democratic societies. Communications surveillance may not be established based on discrimination of race, color, religion, gender, language, nationality, social origins, political opinions, or other similar criteria.

- Such limitations to privacy in communications must be necessary, adequate and proportional considering the legitimate goals intended to be achieved. “Necessary”, because it must be the only means or the least offensive alternative to human rights able to effectively achieve the intended legitimate aim. “Adequate” because it is necessary that it is proper to achieve this specific aim.  “Proportional”, because it must always be considered that the practice of surveillance is harmful to the exercise of fundamental rights and to democracy. In such context, the adoption of these practices must entail the balancing of the seriousness involving the breach of privacy in relation to the legitimate aim intended to be achieved, with the establishment of measures and differentiated degrees of intrusion for criminal investigations and other investigations.

- The limitations to the right to privacy on communications must be determined by a competent and impartial judicial authority that is independent from other authorities that conduct the surveillance proceedings. Court order shall be issued in the due process, subject to the procedures provided for by law, publicly known and in line with the protection of human rights. Full legal defense cannot be excluded also, and user notification may be waived or postponed only in specific cases set forth by law.

- Transparency of the States in the use and scope of the techniques and powers related to communications surveillance is required. Periodic reports must give information about refused and approved requests, about what is the service provider that has received them and about the type of investigation. The applicable legislation and the procedures put in place by the service providers, regarding those requests, also must be publicly available. The practice of surveillance by the State must be under the supervision of other entities. The compliance of these measures, however, doesn’t avoid the concern that the surveillance on communications may compromise the integrity, security and privacy of the communication system.

- Finally, it is relevant to establish protection related to the international cooperation on the provision of data and against the illegitimate access to the information of users. In the first case, among others, it is important to assure international standards with high level of human rights protection by means of agreements clearly documented, publicly available, and subjected to the guarantees of procedural fairness. In the second case, it’s necessary that countries are encouraged to consider on their legal systems the appropriated responsibility to improper usage and providing of data, as well as stipulate defense mechanisms to the individuals affected. The legal protection of privacy may also imply the guarantee of data destruction or its return to the individuals as soon as the material obtained through surveillance procedures has accomplished the purpose for which it has been collected.

These fundamentals are inspired by a proposal developed by different international civil society organizations and supported by more than 400 entities around the world, entitled “International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance” (available at https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org).



From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 17 10:05:04 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:35:04 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net>

David,

On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net 
> <mailto:Guru at ITforChange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has 
>> an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree 
>> that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds 
>> information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, 
>> not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems 
>> from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental 
>> knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can 
>> take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>
> Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or 
> government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. 
> Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google 
> searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious 
> search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at 
> least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way.

Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give a 
response ... the issue of technical challenges needs to be considered, 
but anyone familiar with public policy making knows that policy making 
is a very complex activity with many possibilities, probabilities, 
difficulties, technicalities etc... the first sign of technical 
difficulties is no reason to abandon a public policy measure. The world 
of IT is supposed to be the world of great innovation, here innovation 
can serve public interest purpose (by identifying methods by which 
gaming can be reduced if not eliminated), rather than private profit.

> Google have revealed quite a few aspects of how they store search 
> information, and how they use it

Who have they revealed it to?
How do we ensure that what they are saying reflects reality/truth?

In the spirit of public policy making (which normally involves 
considerable cross understanding, give and take), I am willing to 
consider possibilities that google does not make its search algorithm 
open to all, but shares it with a group/body of identified public 
interest actors, who can in confidence, scrutinise it to ensure that the 
search engine is not violating our rights for its commercial purposes 
(and for the political interests of its masters). Would you support this 
idea? This is one possibility, we may need to figure out many other 
possibilities, exceptions etc

> , and what they have revealed is of significant value in assessing the 
> privacy implications (and FWIW, they de-identify most search data 
> after 6 months, or at least that was the case when I was last given a 
> detailed briefing in 2012).
> But they have good reasons for keeping the details of their search 
> algorithms secret that go beyond simple desire to keep the details of 
> their business secret - an algorithm that is public is one that will 
> be gamed by search engine optimization services, thus rendering the 
> service significantly less useful. I don't see rendering googles 
> searches vulnerable to SEO to be a useful public policy goal. I 
> appreciate the idea of their basic algorithms being part of the 
> cultural commons,

Much thanks for appreciating that search for information in the 
"information society" is indeed part of cultural commons, it ought to 
work for the public interest and not be coloured by private interest. 
This I think is a basic principle. Today we really have no idea what 
malignant pieces of code are hidden in the search algorithm that violate 
various human rights .....

> but they have revealed their basic technique
> I'm not arguing against oversight. But expecting revelation of trade 
> secrets, even when it destroys both the commercial advantage gained by 
> their development, AND the utility of the service to the general 
> public, seems to push that principle too far.
> Cheers
>
> David
>
>>
>> regards,
>> Guru
>>
>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>
>>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found 
>> to have violated competition norms of the country. Google, which is 
>> facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog 
>> Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to 
>> about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated 
>> competition norms of the country.
>>
>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its 
>> investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US 
>> antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were 
>> good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for 
>> over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is 
>> abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an 
>> entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up 
>> to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case 
>> of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a 
>> staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum 
>> penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
>>
>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a 
>> Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the 
>> Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed 
>> statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal 
>> Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are 
>> good for users and good for competition.”
>>
>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint 
>> against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was 
>> first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 
>> 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com <http://matrimony.com> 
>> Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok 
>> Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine 
>> favours platforms it wants to support.
>>
>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will 
>> get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain 
>> order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is 
>> the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the 
>> investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said.
>>
>> source - 
>> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/d205ae60/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Mar 17 10:50:36 2014
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:50:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au> <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp>


On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:

> David,
> 
> On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>> 
>> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>> 
>>  Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way. 
> 
> Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give a response ...


Hi Guru,

Apologies, I took your reply as agreeing with the points I made, so I didn't bother to reply further.  You agreed to a high probability of gaming occurring... and suggested research.  I took this as you agreeing that you had been too enthusiastic when stating that Google's search algorithm needs to be public knowledge. 

Best,

Adam




> the issue of technical challenges needs to be considered, but anyone familiar with public policy making knows that policy making is a very complex activity with many possibilities, probabilities, difficulties, technicalities etc... the first sign of technical difficulties is no reason to abandon a public policy measure. The world of IT is supposed to be the world of great innovation, here innovation can serve public interest purpose (by identifying methods by which gaming can be reduced if not eliminated), rather than private profit.
> 
>>  Google have revealed quite a few aspects of how they store search information, and how they use it
> 
> Who have they revealed it to?
> How do we ensure that what they are saying reflects reality/truth?
> 
> In the spirit of public policy making (which normally involves considerable cross understanding, give and take), I am willing to consider possibilities that google does not make its search algorithm open to all, but shares it with a group/body of identified public interest actors, who can in confidence, scrutinise it to ensure that the search engine is not violating our rights for its commercial purposes (and for the political interests of its masters). Would you support this idea? This is one possibility, we may need to figure out many other possibilities, exceptions etc
> 
>> , and what they have revealed is of significant value in assessing the privacy implications (and FWIW, they de-identify most search data after 6 months, or at least that was the case when I was last given a detailed briefing in 2012).
>>  But they have good reasons for keeping the details of their search algorithms secret that go beyond simple desire to keep the details of their business secret - an algorithm that is public is one that will be gamed by search engine optimization         services, thus rendering the service significantly less useful. I don't see rendering googles searches vulnerable to SEO to be a useful public policy goal. I appreciate the idea of their basic algorithms being part of the cultural commons,
> 
> Much thanks for appreciating that search for information in the "information society" is indeed part of cultural commons, it ought to work for the public interest and not be coloured by private interest. This I think is a basic principle. Today we really have no idea what malignant pieces of code are hidden in the search algorithm that violate various human rights .....
> 
>> but they have revealed their basic technique
>>  I'm not arguing against oversight. But expecting revelation of trade secrets, even when it destroys both the commercial advantage gained by their development, AND the utility of the service to the general public, seems to push that principle too far. 
>>  Cheers
>> 
>>  David
>>  
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> Guru
>>> 
>>> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
>>> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>>> 
>>>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country. 
>>> 
>>> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of             its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
>>> 
>>> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.” 
>>> 
>>> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support. 
>>> 
>>> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put             them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
>>> 
>>> source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as 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  Wed Mar  5 06:21:57 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:51:57 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for
 endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>


Hi Jeremy

For quite some time now, my analysis/prediction about the efforts of 
ICANN plus (and whoever backs them) vis vis the NetMundial has been as 
follows;

1. the main aim was to stop Brazil from the path Its President's speech 
at the UN looked to be paving - that of engaging the global community in 
UN spaces for the needed global Internet governance mechanisms.... That 
aim has been achieved, at least for the time being...

2. To make an alluring offer to Brazil to get them off the track 
mentioned above, which was in terms of some vague promises about some 
real steps forward in terms of internationalisation of ICANN... However 
as NetMundial approaches, we hear less and less of anything concrete in 
this regard. Anyway, since the show was being arranged, it was found 
useful if some good text could be got into the NetMundial outcome docs 
on/*'multistakeholder decision making' including, and specifically, on 
global public policy issues*/. This latter is the primary objective at 
this point. And the mentioned parties have been going about in a 
completely unabashed manner - helped considerably by some unexplained 
high degree of bashfulness of the involved civil society. We saw 1 Net 
being formed from nowhere (sorry, now we know, from an ICANN board 
decision), it taking over the meeting's co-ownership, various 
shenanigans around selection of its steering committee (which in any 
case is constantly bypassed, and never seems to converse with the 
respective constituencies), imposition of a person with highly 
questionable standing and reputation as civil society leader of the 
meeting (about which Ian again recommends further bashful for civil 
society) , and now a sudden survey which will formulate the 1Net aka 
'global internet community' view on Internet principles for submission 
to the netMundial..... and so on.... Believe me, you havent seen nothing 
yet. Wait for the days close to the meeting....

And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has 
this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet 
governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable 
access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making 
process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!

Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission 
to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.

I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  
- which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
/*
*//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder 
participation"*/ and whether it is different from what is meant in the 
above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are 
you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal 
part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. 
Please address this point specifically.

I hope those proposing this statement will explain this point. I think 
it is their responsibility to do so, instead of slipping in such 
concepts, what would in default be, somewhat surreptitiously, which many 
potential signees are apt to miss..

Thanks

parminder






On Wednesday 05 March 2014 01:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now 
> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting. 
>  These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the 
> Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face 
> review this week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of 
> the institutional submission) by those of you who are present at 
> RightsCon in San Francisco.
>
> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for 
> endorsement separately, are:
>
>  1. Internet governance principles,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>  2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem – institutional mechanisms,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>  3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem – ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>
>
> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but 
> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of 
> the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to 
> read the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree 
> with them, of course), and then to spread the word through social 
> media, email or word of mouth.
>
> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your 
> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/a27462c3/attachment.htm>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Mon Mar 17 11:29:43 2014
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:59:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au> <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net> <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <532714E7.7010107@ITforChange.net>

On 03/17/2014 08:20 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>>> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>>   Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way.
>> Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give a response ...
>
> Hi Guru,
>
> Apologies, I took your reply as agreeing with the points I made, so I didn't bother to reply further.  You agreed to a high probability of gaming occurring... and suggested research.  I took this as you agreeing that you had been too enthusiastic when stating that Google's search algorithm needs to be public knowledge.

Hardly Adam, for any public policy, there will be innumerable 
issues/challenges.  the challenge of gaming is obvious and I have no 
doubt it needs to be and can be  addressed.

By the same logic, free and open source software should have the maximum 
viruses since it the source code is freely available. Paradoxically, 
while Windows is plagued with viruses, GNU/Linux is not. One of the 
reasons given is that, the open source allows many people to study and 
identify issues and help resolve it... whereas this is not possible with 
proprietary software.

Do you accept that Google keeping its search algorithm has dangerous 
public interest implications - we really dont know what is hidden in the 
code used by millions of users and how it may have malignant code that 
can serve its commercial (and post Snowden we know how many US IT 
companies are hand in glove with the USG) political interest of its  
masters.? If yes,  then you need to think of a public interest based 
response to this ...  the ball is in your court as well..

Guru

> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Mar 17 12:40:09 2014
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:40:09 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....
In-Reply-To: <532714E7.7010107@ITforChange.net>
References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net>
 <D5297935-C666-4A71-B184-A82821C22DCD@difference.com.au>
 <53270110.40803@ITforChange.net>
 <C93D8AAD-645B-4D01-B004-A9CD34E13503@glocom.ac.jp>,<532714E7.7010107@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <57725fde13d044fc89fd30239786e884@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Hey Guru,

As I have previously stated, competition policy is a purview of states, and at global level, organizations like the WTO; and draft treaties like the TPP, like it or not.

ICANN can set its own - subsidiary - policies in that arena but it is far more likely the Chinese, Indian, French, EU, and US relevant government agencies will have oversight of Google search effects on market competition - and what a coincidence, all of them have a variety of competition policy inquiries into Google search and other practices going on right now.

Of course Best Bits and IGC are free to weigh in on the specifics in each of those cases, and make recommendations for new global public policies, for the global Internet economy also in the competition policy arena broadly speaking.

But, I am more than a little unclear, OK I am seriously confused, if you now are suggesting ICANN should weigh in and be a place that can set that level of competition policy. In a hypothetical future out-of-California state? 

I suggest we are confounding levels of political, and regulatory authority, if we are suggesting that ICANN should substitute, or even have a place at the table, with competition policy matters before the WTO, OECD, TPP, and Indian, Chinese, French, EU, and US governments - to just list the competition policy/regulatory arenas I am aware of where Google practices are in question, there might be more.

To end on a positive/speculative note, if you are suggesting a new UDRP-like arrangement whereby ICANN provides/channels multi-stakeholder input into say WTO/EU?/national competition policy inquiries...well, that would be - different : )

Lee

________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:29 AM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] need for regulation ....

On 03/17/2014 08:20 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>> On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>>> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>>>   Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way.
>> Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give a response ...
>
> Hi Guru,
>
> Apologies, I took your reply as agreeing with the points I made, so I didn't bother to reply further.  You agreed to a high probability of gaming occurring... and suggested research.  I took this as you agreeing that you had been too enthusiastic when stating that Google's search algorithm needs to be public knowledge.

Hardly Adam, for any public policy, there will be innumerable
issues/challenges.  the challenge of gaming is obvious and I have no
doubt it needs to be and can be  addressed.

By the same logic, free and open source software should have the maximum
viruses since it the source code is freely available. Paradoxically,
while Windows is plagued with viruses, GNU/Linux is not. One of the
reasons given is that, the open source allows many people to study and
identify issues and help resolve it... whereas this is not possible with
proprietary software.

Do you accept that Google keeping its search algorithm has dangerous
public interest implications - we really dont know what is hidden in the
code used by millions of users and how it may have malignant code that
can serve its commercial (and post Snowden we know how many US IT
companies are hand in glove with the USG) political interest of its
masters.? If yes,  then you need to think of a public interest based
response to this ...  the ball is in your court as well..

Guru

> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>


From anriette at apc.org  Mon Mar 17 14:24:14 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:24:14 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Input on IGF 2014 format and main sessions
Message-ID: <53273DCE.6070205@apc.org>

Dear all

There is a MAG meeting tomorrow and I would like your input on session
formats.

Should there be 'main sessions' or focus sessions?  How many? One a day
or only on the first day and the last day?

What should the format be of these sessions?

Should there be feeder workshops? Or Round Tables on a theme?

Should the MAG make an open call for policy questions around which these
focus/main sessions can be built?

Looking at the main and sub themes for this year's IGF, on which topics
do you feel main sessions/focus sessions are needed?


*Proposed Overaching Theme and Sub Themes for IGF 2014*

 

Proposed Overarching Theme: *Connecting Continents for Enhanced
Multistakeholder Internet Governance*

Proposed Sub Themes:

 1. Policies enabling Access
 2. Content Creation, Dissemination and Use
 3. Internet as engine for growth & development
 4. IGF & The Future of the Internet ecosystem
 5. Enhancing Digital Trust
 6. Internet and Human Rights
 7. Critical Internet Resources
 8. Emerging Issues

 


Thanks

Anriette

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140317/fbd64677/attachment.htm>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Tue Mar 18 03:37:19 2014
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:37:19 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGC press release in response to
 the NTIA announcement of March 14
In-Reply-To: <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACTo+v8wd8xXGBi_b+7JVnNEKUZG7RJ+GATJdS=aDqhAdhi16Q@mail.gmail.com>	<5800F791D3D64A5FA6894D71AD81A110@Toshiba>	<13BCD87FE58E4B7FA8F84F203701E533@Toshiba>	<532598D1.90103@acm.org>	<9B03F5AF-CF0B-4931-B968-66C33903C6ED@mail.utoronto.ca> <CAHyAo0EOJ3--wngGB46Q8HecHrnhn3E-X03ou+-oKpg_sKt1sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5327F7AF.5070104@cis-india.org>

Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> [2014-03-16 13:37:31]:
> Hello
>
>> IGC supports the multistakeholder policymaking model to the extent that it
>> does not contradict the ideals of democracy, including due consideration to
>> the rights of minorities (in the context of Internet policy)
>
>
> "to the extent that Mutli-stakeholder model contradict the ideals of
> democracy"?  Multi-stakeholder model is expanded democracy, the next step
> in the further evolution of democracy. Is there room for this model to
> contradict the ideals of democracy???

Yes. A consensus model without a rights framework that safeguards 
minorities can be harmful to minorities.

> "consideration of rights of minorities" - If this is a Global process, open
> for participation from all stake-holders, from every nation, the policies
> that would emerge out of the process is bound to be balanced. The intention
> behind this thought about the "rights" of minorities might be noble, but as
> unintended consequences, this idea of special attention could
> lead to politicization of the process.

You mean to say that Internet governance can be devoid of politics?  I 
don't see how that is either possible nor why that would be desirable.


-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
-------------------
Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140318/4cbca293/attachment.sig>

From mctimconsulting at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 06:27:46 2014
From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:27:46 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <5316D5AA.3060400@acm.org>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com> <20140207150553.775173a6@quill>
 <CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org>
 <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net>
 <1146D0C6-9ABB-4DB5-8D4E-E0DE8664ED04@post.harvard.edu> <5316D5AA.3060400@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgLyRdt0JdoE-GPEUhoQ_zS1MsQvwt7fggPuN0id=bJVA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The idea that Davos is a good example of multistakeholder process is, in
> my opinion a straw dog argument.  When most of us talk about
> multistakeholder, we do not talk about just a special handful of polite CS
> invitees, but an open door for multistakeholder actors.  Davos, again in my
> opinion, has nothing to do with multistakeholder policy making



+1

rgds,

McTim





> except for those who want to continue to use their influence within their
> own governments to the exclusion of others.
>
>
> avri
>
>
> On 03-Mar-14 15:44, David Allen wrote:
>
>> Though I am seriously late to find - thank goodness for it.
>>
>> Terrifying, for me anyway.  Should be read widely.  So much thanks to
>> Parminder for sending.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 1:02 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
>>>
>>> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
>>>
>>> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
>>>
>>> Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late,
>>> and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/35604b7d/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  5 06:49:53 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:19:53 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has 
>> this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to 
>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and 
>> equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the 
>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>
>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>
>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>> /*
>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder 
>> participation"*/and whether it is different from what is meant in the 
>> above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, 
>> are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have 
>> equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public 
>> policies. Please address this point specifically.
>
> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on 
> the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for 
> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it 
> was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable 
> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the 
> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder 
> roles should be.


I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.

So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision 
making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken 
on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point 
today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not 
too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to 
NetMundial

"Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the 
people, possess public authority including internet-related public 
policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and 
democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human 
rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that relevant 
national legislation complies with their obligations under international 
law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions 
both in terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. 
Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and 
notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at 
community level. The private sector and particularly the technical 
community significantly influence and encourage the development, 
distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to 
do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, 
innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas and 
democratic participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders 
involved need to work together."

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

parminder




>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/7010dd1e/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Wed Mar  5 06:39:33 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 19:39:33 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
> 
> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
> 
> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
> 
> Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder participation" and whether it is different from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please address this point specifically. 

Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/21f3ab84/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/21f3ab84/attachment.sig>

From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Wed Mar  5 07:28:08 2014
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:28:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched
 for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D592D2F6-1C59-4690-A698-578352067C7A@post.harvard.edu>

On Mar 5, 2014, at 6:49 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>> 
>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>> 
>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>> 
>>> Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder participation" and whether it is different from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please address this point specifically. 
>> 
>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
> 
> 
> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy. 
> 
> So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...
> 
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial
> 
> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the people, possess public authority including internet-related public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
> 
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
> 
> parminder 

I can only underline what Parminder says:

Do you support democracy, as for instance laid out in the German statement - where governments are the legitimate makers and implementors of policy, with participation by the various members and groups in a society?  Or, do you support some quite undefined alternative, to push democracy aside - where, just as a very tiny example, the Brazil meeting, which might have had such promise, is now the mouthpiece for ICANN aspirations?

David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/54101bab/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Wed Mar  5 07:21:17 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:21:17 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.

> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial
> 
> ...
> 
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/a4eef501/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/a4eef501/attachment.sig>

From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 07:42:04 2014
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 08:42:04 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for IGF 2014 Workshop Proposals
In-Reply-To: <CAC0JwGP8DgxiV=QROdwzQpG1jE7xvhU5hEaE1toUwD3oUnJHFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC0JwGP8DgxiV=QROdwzQpG1jE7xvhU5hEaE1toUwD3oUnJHFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC0JwGML9W6x++rvXJK3uVtfC62YYXUhFNhQO0VqQmDQrCzniw@mail.gmail.com>

(Apologies for cross-posting)

Not sure if this has been posted on the various  lists due to high volume
of NetMundial traffic yet, but here it is from the IGF website. Note the
hard and fast deadline.

"IGF 2014

The Ninth Annual IGF Meeting will be held in Istanbul, Turkey on 2-5
September 2014.

[NEW] Call for Workshop Proposals

The IGF Secretariat is issuing a call for workshop proposals for the 2014
Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. Interested workshop
organizers are kindly asked to submit workshop proposals through the online
form that will be available on the IGF website from 25 March 2014. The
deadline for submission is 15 April 2014. Please note that there can be no
extension of the deadline.  Before submission, they are kindly asked to
read the Workshop submission guidelines before submission.  A template of
the online proposal form is available."

------
Rgds,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/fb0b59fb/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  5 07:29:32 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:59:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf 
>>> has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to 
>>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free 
>>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the 
>>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>
>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>
>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>> /*
>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from 
>>> what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, 
>>> how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, 
>>> including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in 
>>> making decisions about public policies. Please address this point 
>>> specifically.
>>
>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on 
>> the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for 
>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times 
>> it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable 
>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the 
>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder 
>> roles should be.
>
>
> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision 
> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 


It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS 
contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder 
governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..

In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral 
democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be 
multilateral and democratic. "

Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present 
submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come 
from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.

Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted as 
somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and 
G 8 principles....

In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically 
speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not 
figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to 
democracy (the other two docs)

Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society 
actors in IG space - come up with .....

There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this 
doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics" 
you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity, 
accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder participation */" 
(emphasis added)

In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word 
'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone 
and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know 
which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc.

And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get 
caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of 
the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic 
world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a 
good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the 
powerful warriors of the neolib order.

See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable 
multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging 
contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting 
introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches 
what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US 
supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from 
NetMundial...... All of piece.

parminder


> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
> skirt it...
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
> to NetMundial
>
> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the 
> people, possess public authority including internet-related public 
> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy 
> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect 
> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that 
> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under 
> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate 
> basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical 
> provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to 
> do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and 
> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and 
> particularly the technical community significantly influence and 
> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the 
> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to 
> the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, 
> access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a 
> knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/feb75815/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  5 10:11:57 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:41:57 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] Three NETmundial submissions launched for
 endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <53173EBD.60108@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 05 March 2014 01:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now 
> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting. 
>  These submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the 
> Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face 
> review this week (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of 
> the institutional submission) by those of you who are present at 
> RightsCon in San Francisco.
>
> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for 
> endorsement separately, are:
>
>  1. Internet governance principles,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>  2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem -- institutional mechanisms,
>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>  3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>     Ecosystem -- ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>

The ICANN related submission really takes the cake...

ICANN should stay a US non profit under Californian law, which is 
declared to be the best for this purpose. Great! That is just the 
pronouncement that people were waiting with bated breath for civil 
society to make.

And if limited forays towards developing additional international bases 
-without changing the legal incorporation in the US - has indeed to be 
tried, try Belgium and Switzerland - dont even look at those dangerous 
developing countries. But then of course there is, latter on, also the 
standard, complementary patronising separate section on  doing something 
about those poor developing countries....

And of course the only principle that ICANN should look at is FoE, no 
matter that its new gTLD policy is an instrument for private (mostly US 
based) appropriation of cultural names, idea and heritages from the 
world over... Lets not bother about such small things... Cultural rights 
and such things are old outdated concepts in this brave new world.

As a colleague said offline, this proposal could have been written by 
ICANN.... I disagree only to the extent that in the present 
circumstances even ICANN cant write this stuff - only some 'more royal 
than the king' civil society can.... After all the overt promises that 
were made to the Brazil President, obviously ICANN needs to offer 
something more clear and concrete, lets see...

I am almost shocked that such a submission can be proposed to go in the 
name of global civil society groups.... What must one think of 
developing countries really, to propose this....

BestBits office holders, is there a minimum threshold below which the BB 
platform is not offered for collecting endorsements?

Parminder


>
> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but 
> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of 
> the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to 
> read the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree 
> with them, of course), and then to spread the word through social 
> media, email or word of mouth.
>
> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your 
> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/fc1205d5/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Mar  5 07:45:11 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:15:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <53171C57.4060509@itforchange.net>




On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision 
>> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
>> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
>> skirt it...
>
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all 
> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to 
> that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my 
> personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no 
> I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision 
> making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that 
> language being used.
>
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as 
> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a 
> "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may 
> be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one 
> of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For 
> example governments may take a leading role in transnational human 
> rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam 
> filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human 
> rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, 
> and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the 
> trading of IPv4 addresses.

I am ready to sign off on this language, by adding some things like, 
social justice claims also in govs basket (very often, and easily, 
forgotten). Can I propose it for adoption by BB and IGC..... Now, if 
there are others who dont agree to the above - and of course there are 
such people whereby Jeremy had to defer - would they please explain 
their position. For the sake of transparency and accountability, and of 
course, if democracy means anything, for promoting deliberative democracy.

And again, I never spoke of the whole range of issues and elements that 
governance consists of, and your response is therefore a bit off track..

I asked my question specifically in terms of - /*taking decisions in 
terms of public policies*/... Please answer that part specifically. Now 
lets not begin on, one does not understand what is meant by 'public 
policies'... The whole discipline of political science is based on it, 
all constitutions of the world are relatively clear about this term.

>
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may 
> differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all 
> follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder 
> roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the 
> circumstances.

All the examples you mention can be captured in some concepts and theory 
for appropriate democratic governance... Non-fixity is the post modern 
contraption that the powerful have used very well in the global IG 
space.... We can claim non fixity for anything and then not allow any 
norms to be built... Is transparency, to take just one example, a fixed 
norm - I can show you a thousand counter-instances where it cannot be 
made to apply... That way nothing is fixed.... So, then why write any 
principle at all. Making principles is about fixing things somewhat, as 
higher norms which practice uses as guidelines... Tell me one principle 
which has fixed meaning and application... Is equality among all people 
a fixed thing, is 'liberty' .........



parminder
>
>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
>> to NetMundial
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it 
> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/7ccd6f6a/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Mar  5 11:46:33 2014
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:46:33 +0000
Subject: [] [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for
 endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <D592D2F6-1C59-4690-A698-578352067C7A@post.harvard.edu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <D592D2F6-1C59-4690-A698-578352067C7A@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <531754E9.2080209@acm.org>



On 05-Mar-14 12:28, David Allen wrote:
> Do you support democracy, as for instance laid out in the German
> statement - where governments are the legitimate makers and implementors
> of policy, with participation by the various members and groups in a
> society?


Within the borders of their country: yes

Elsewhere, including the Internet: no, unless it is based on treaty 
language.

That is the key difference that some keep ignoring: Sovereignty is 
restricted to within a sovereign nation's borders. It does not extend 
beyond those borders. When it does, it is called invasion.


avri

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Mar  4 13:31:45 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:31:45 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] this is posted but not open for signatures?!
Message-ID: <CAK-FJActz9Qsurzpg=HQaK+CWddjNuJ37SsHAmBy3a34W1dbFQ@mail.gmail.com>

http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140304/4ea017dc/attachment.htm>

From laura at article19.org  Wed Mar  5 12:26:18 2014
From: laura at article19.org (Laura Tresca)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:26:18 +0000
Subject: RES: [bestbits] FYI RightsCon program- internet governance sessions
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQYG3ts8i0nUnucfAGaOBc2r=4Q_9kSLmy6Ed_p4xjBNEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALU7RQYG3ts8i0nUnucfAGaOBc2r=4Q_9kSLmy6Ed_p4xjBNEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DA2F68@A19MAIL.aricle19.org>

Hi, Deborah
Please, could you confirm the room for "São Paulo and Beyond:  the Future of Global Internet Governance"?
Thank you.





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 Deborah Brown [deborah at accessnow.org]

Enviado: sexta-feira, 28 de fevereiro de 2014 0:02

Para: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Assunto: [bestbits] FYI RightsCon program- internet governance sessions











Dear all, 





RightsCon Silicon Valley starts on Monday, 3 March and
 I wanted to highlight a few sessions on internet governance for those of you who are planning to participate in person or remotely. The full program is available

here. I will send out more details on remote participation soon.








Internet Governance Basics : What's at stake in 2014?



March 3 @ 3:30-4:45 PST/GMT -8








2014 is shaping up to be an important year in Internet
 Governance. Not only is the question of who runs the Internet becoming headline news, but the diplomatic calendar is full of occasions for governments to demand more control. Add to this mix next month’s Multistakeholder Meeting in Brazil, plus a number of
 high level panels seeking a new, middle path and you have a recipe for either a new paradigm for global cooperation - or a politically fragmented Internet. We'll hear from a range of people steeped in the internet governance debate and explain what's up for
 grabs, who is to be impacted, what are the current models being proposed - and most importantly why this matters to Silicon Valley.




All speakers will do on intro on their key issues and trends, and engage the audience in a discussion as to why this is important.Communicating what’s good and bad about the present model exploring new transnational mechanisms for Internet Governance; looking at “Splinternets” on the horizon and its impact on business; Geopolitical pressures
 and responses Why 2014 is the year to get involved. Why you should and how you can do it?
Speakers: 



Bertrand De La Chapelle (Internet Jurisdiction, France) 

Anja Kovacs (Internet Democracy Project, India) 

Nnenna Nwakanma - (Web Foundation, Cote d'Ivoire) 

Ronaldo Lemos - (Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade, Brazil)

Chris Riley (Mozilla, USA) TBC
Moderator:
Chris Mondini (ICANN)









"São Paulo and Beyond:  the Future of Global Internet Governance"

March 5 @ 12-1:15pm PST/GMT -8



This session will bring together a mix of experts involved in global internet governance
 policy spaces to help bring greater clarity around Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (Net Mundial) and where internet governance will go after it. This dynamic panel will aim to clarify misconceptions about the event, what’s
 at stake, and what internet governance might look like in the next 20 years. It will bring together academics, advocates, government, and the private sector for a dynamic conversation with the broader digital rights community.






Joana Varon (FGV/CTS)

Anja Kovacs (Internet Democracy Project)

Johan Hallenborg (Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Ben Wagner (Annenberg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania)

Patrick Ryan (Google)




Moderator: Deborah Brown (Access)



São Paulo Civil Society Strategy session
 
March 3 @ 9am-12pm PST/GMT -8



This is a civil society strategizing session* ahead of the Net Mundial meeting and other upcoming internet
 governance events on Some ideas for an agenda


Finalizing contributions for the Net Mundial meeting

Building consensus between various contributions

Strategizing on ways to build support for CS position among other stakeholders

Brainstorming on media strategy, guiding the narrative on how this event is covered

Input on the agenda for the preparatory civil society meeting in São Paulo, and delivering a message to that meeting on behalf of those who won't
 be there

Looking beyond São Paulo, more precisely 2015+




*Note: This is not part of the official programming, so please reach out to me directly if you would like to participate in this session in person
 or remotely. 






-- 












Deborah Brown


Senior Policy Analyst


Access | 
accessnow.org


rightscon.org







@deblebrown


PGP 0x5EB4727D






From nigel.hickson at icann.org  Wed Mar  5 16:54:24 2014
From: nigel.hickson at icann.org (Nigel Hickson)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:54:24 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for
 endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CF3D32DF.66769%nigel.hickson@icann.org>

Parminder 

Good evening; when you say the "global community" in the UN; are you
thinking beyond governments; it is just I recall that when in the UNGA I
only recalled governmentsŠ..

Best

Nigel 



From:  parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To:  parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date:  Wednesday, March 5, 2014 12:21 PM
To:  "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,
"governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject:  Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for
endorsement at bestbits.net

    
 
 Hi Jeremy
 
 For quite some time now, my analysis/prediction about the efforts of ICANN
plus (and whoever backs them) vis vis the NetMundial has been as follows;
 
 1. the main aim was to stop Brazil from the path Its President's speech at
the UN looked to be paving - that of engaging the global community in UN
spaces for the needed global Internet governance mechanisms.... That aim has
been achieved, at least for the time being...
 
 2. To make an alluring offer to Brazil to get them off the track mentioned
above, which was in terms of some vague promises about some real steps
forward in terms of internationalisation of ICANN... However as NetMundial
approaches, we hear less and less of anything concrete in this regard.
Anyway, since the show was being arranged, it was found useful if some good
text could be got into the NetMundial outcome docs on 'multistakeholder
decision making' including, and specifically, on global public policy
issues. This latter is the primary objective at this point. And the
mentioned parties have been going about in a completely unabashed manner -
helped considerably by some unexplained high degree of bashfulness of the
involved civil society. We saw 1 Net being formed from nowhere (sorry, now
we know, from an ICANN board decision), it taking over the meeting's
co-ownership, various shenanigans around selection of its steering committee
(which in any case is constantly bypassed, and never seems to converse with
the respective constituencies), imposition of a person with highly
questionable standing and reputation as civil society leader of the meeting
(about which Ian again recommends further bashful for civil society) , and
now a sudden survey which will formulate the 1Net aka 'global internet
community' view on Internet principles for submission to the netMundial.....
and so on.... Believe me, you havent seen nothing yet. Wait for the days
close to the meeting....
 
 And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has this
all important principle, " Decisions made with respect to Internet
governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable
access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process."
Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
 
 Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission to
NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
 
 I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  -
which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
 
 Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder
participation" and whether it is different from what is meant in the above
statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking
that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as
gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please address this
point specifically.
 
 I hope those proposing this statement will explain this point. I think it
is their responsibility to do so, instead of slipping in such concepts, what
would in default be, somewhat surreptitiously, which many potential signees
are apt to miss..
 
 Thanks 
 
 parminder  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Wednesday 05 March 2014 01:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
 
 
>   
> Dear all,
>  
> 
>  
>  
> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now
> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial meeting.  These
> submissions are the end results of extensive discussions on the Best Bits
> lists going back to last year, with a final face-to-face review this week
> (particularly on the roadmap for further evolution of the institutional
> submission) by those of you who are present at RightsCon in San Francisco.
>  
> 
>  
>  
> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for endorsement
> separately, are:
>  
> 
>  
>  
>  
> 1. Internet governance principles, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
> 2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem ­
> institutional mechanisms, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
> 3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem ­
> ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>  
>  
> 
>  
>  
> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but between
> now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each of the statements
> as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to read the statements, to
> endorse each of them separately (if you agree with them, of course), and then
> to spread the word through social media, email or word of mouth.
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your endorsement
> on each of the submissions soon.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> --
>  
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>  
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>  
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org> |awk -F!
> '{print $3}'
>  
>  
>  
>  WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
> enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
 
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/c5057518/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/c5057518/attachment.bin>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 18:57:41 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 15:57:41 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by
Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or
accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no
(evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the
stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are
some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr. those with "role
flexibilities".

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain
gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the ("non-existent"-we have it on the
highest possible authority-trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A
appears to consist of repeated choruses of "trust them it will get better"
by a fawning self-selected "Steering Committee", but surely in our world we
might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:





So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about
public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty
point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion.
This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly
agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the
key point, and not skirt it...

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse
the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.
I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because
I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general
proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I
personally objected to that language being used.

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals
in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at
all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate
that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately
take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a
leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community
may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in
developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance
practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for
the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in
each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if
you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the
appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.





BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to
NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it
maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/01e87149/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Mar  5 21:14:02 2014
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 02:14:02 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>

Michael

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?




From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

Have I missed something here?

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:


So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.


BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org<http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/16cf4078/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 21:57:46 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:57:46 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>

Andrew (and Suresh.

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious
discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over.) the undefined, undescribed,
undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn't get us any closer. 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they
are challenged to get real --well this isn't quite "MSism", it isn't true
MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn't do anyone a service
(except the "wizards" behind the curtains). 

 

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Mar  5 22:07:42 2014
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 03:07:42 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>

I’m sorry Mike – you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Andrew (and Suresh…

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate.

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer…

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 23:02:30 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:02:30 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>

Ah. the "if I ruled the world" challenge. yes, flattering but ultimately
inconsequential. I don't (thank god) rule the world. So my off the cuff
solutions aren't worth all that much.

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among
others addressing more or less this very question. and the answer was. it's
complicated.

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology
infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate
mechanisms for consultation/decision making. And yes the answer was
multi-stakeholder . but. not multistakeholderist. multi-stakeholder within a
context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder
consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned
including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out
how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this
would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven
with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the
consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough
and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in
Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran. not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it
seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work
in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside - well "first we take Manhattan and then we
take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it's not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of
democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and
being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State
Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected
"civil society" organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonar
d-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Si
ngle_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm';
'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I'm sorry Mike - you are not answering the question.  If you mean by
multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by
states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap -
which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious
length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests -
or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

 

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of
voices - including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the
governance debate.

 

Put your option up for discussion and let's see how democratic that is to
the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>,
"governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy
Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net"
<parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Andrew (and Suresh.

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious
discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over.) the undefined, undescribed,
undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn't get us any closer. 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they
are challenged to get real --well this isn't quite "MSism", it isn't true
MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn't do anyone a service
(except the "wizards" behind the curtains). 

 

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Mar  5 23:36:42 2014
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 04:36:42 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.


From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf


M

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Andrew (and Suresh…

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate.

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer…

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).

From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices “or else…

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest.

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their structures.

I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.

Mike



From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Michael

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?




From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

Have I missed something here?

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

M

From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:




So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.




BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org<http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/505936af/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 00:03:30 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:03:30 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

 

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

 

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

 

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

 

Tks,

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

 

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).    

 

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.

 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

 

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

 

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Andrew (and Suresh…

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer… 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains). 

 

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 00:30:06 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:00:06 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for
 endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3D32DF.66769%nigel.hickson@icann.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <CF3D32DF.66769%nigel.hickson@icann.org>
Message-ID: <531807DE.6040806@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:24 AM, Nigel Hickson wrote:
> Parminder
>
> Good evening; when you say the "global community" in the UN; are you 
> thinking beyond governments; it is just I recall that when in the UNGA 
> I only recalled governments.....

Good evening, Nigel.

With global community, I mean the people of the world... (similar to the 
evocation also made in most of our national constitutions and also in 
the UN Charter <https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml>  
- 'We, the people..' kind of stuff'.

Which of course immediately brings us to the issue of practicality of 
processes to develop public policies, since no room can accommodate 8 
billion people neither have any means been perfected to have 8 billion 
people communicate at the same time and be able to reach a mutual 
determination of public interest..

So, in fact we are dealing with the issue of the /next best option/, 
which the democratic thought took to be some kind of representation, so 
that a given practical number of people can do this work on behalf of 
the 8 billion.. while keeping some kind of close touch with the 8 
billion and ensuring that it is them that they represent at all times, 
and so on...

Whereby, the question is, what is the best way to have representativity, 
and what is the best way to keep a continuous touch or contact that I 
speak of above..

It was thought that democratic elections are best to develop 
representativity, but it was also thought that further democratic 
process outside and between elections remain necessary - to keep in 
touch, which generally go in the name of participatory democracy...

Now, no election is fully ok - the Chinese is much less ok that US and 
Indian, and so on... And that is the struggle for democracy. Even in 
India or the US, many think that although there are largely free and 
fair elections, democracy is just not working, and the available 
political parties do not give real political options to the people..... 
and to correct this is also the process of reform of democracy... And so 
much is happening all over the world right now...

But, I could not figure out, in this whole struggle, what is 
multistakeholderism, beyond what we know as participatory democracy, and 
why do business need to get political seats on par with (however 
imperfectly) elected representatives plus their interactions with 
people's groups or what is called as civil society... That is the point 
someone needs to explain....

Well, on the UNGA point, yes there are only govs inside the UNGA, but 
you were at the WGEC (CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation), where 
more than half the room was non gov, talking at the same footing as 
govs, and you know that a report of WGEC is given complete and undivided 
attention by the UNGA, most often simply rubber stamped by it. Right...  
That is participatory democracy working - though I really do not agree 
with representatives of Dinsneyland and AT&T and BT being among the very 
few precious non gov seats in such setting. That is completely not done 
in participatory democracy, but that is MSism. We needed to have 
representative of the diabled people, indigenous groups, feminists, 
health activists, and so on, none f them were there... This is MSism.


parminder




>
> Best
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Reply-To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 12:21 PM
> To: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, 
> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for 
> endorsement at bestbits.net
>
>
> Hi Jeremy
>
> For quite some time now, my analysis/prediction about the efforts of 
> ICANN plus (and whoever backs them) vis vis the NetMundial has been as 
> follows;
>
> 1. the main aim was to stop Brazil from the path Its President's 
> speech at the UN looked to be paving - that of engaging the global 
> community in UN spaces for the needed global Internet governance 
> mechanisms.... That aim has been achieved, at least for the time being...
>
> 2. To make an alluring offer to Brazil to get them off the track 
> mentioned above, which was in terms of some vague promises about some 
> real steps forward in terms of internationalisation of ICANN... 
> However as NetMundial approaches, we hear less and less of anything 
> concrete in this regard. Anyway, since the show was being arranged, it 
> was found useful if some good text could be got into the NetMundial 
> outcome docs on/*'multistakeholder decision making' including, and 
> specifically, on global public policy issues*/. This latter is the 
> primary objective at this point. And the mentioned parties have been 
> going about in a completely unabashed manner - helped considerably by 
> some unexplained high degree of bashfulness of the involved civil 
> society. We saw 1 Net being formed from nowhere (sorry, now we know, 
> from an ICANN board decision), it taking over the meeting's 
> co-ownership, various shenanigans around selection of its steering 
> committee (which in any case is constantly bypassed, and never seems 
> to converse with the respective constituencies), imposition of a 
> person with highly questionable standing and reputation as civil 
> society leader of the meeting (about which Ian again recommends 
> further bashful for civil society) , and now a sudden survey which 
> will formulate the 1Net aka 'global internet community' view on 
> Internet principles for submission to the netMundial..... and so 
> on.... Believe me, you havent seen nothing yet. Wait for the days 
> close to the meeting....
>
> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has 
> this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet 
> governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable 
> access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making 
> process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>
> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>
> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
> /*
> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder 
> participation"*/ and whether it is different from what is meant in the 
> above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are 
> you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal 
> part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. 
> Please address this point specifically.
>
> I hope those proposing this statement will explain this point. I think 
> it is their responsibility to do so, instead of slipping in such 
> concepts, what would in default be, somewhat surreptitiously, which 
> many potential signees are apt to miss..
>
> Thanks
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 01:30 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> With thanks to everyone for their hard work on the drafts, we are now 
>> simultaneously launching three submissions for the NETmundial 
>> meeting.  These submissions are the end results of extensive 
>> discussions on the Best Bits lists going back to last year, with a 
>> final face-to-face review this week (particularly on the roadmap for 
>> further evolution of the institutional submission) by those of you 
>> who are present at RightsCon in San Francisco.
>>
>> The three complementary submissions, all of which are open for 
>> endorsement separately, are:
>>
>>  1. Internet governance principles,
>>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-principles/
>>  2. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>>     Ecosystem -- institutional mechanisms,
>>     http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
>>  3. Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance
>>     Ecosystem -- ICANN, http://bestbits.net/netmundial-icann/
>>
>>
>> These will be formally submitted to NETmundial on 8 March 2014, but 
>> between now and then we are gathering as many endorsements for each 
>> of the statements as we can.  So please I would encourage everyone to 
>> read the statements, to endorse each of them separately (if you agree 
>> with them, of course), and then to spread the word through social 
>> media, email or word of mouth.
>>
>> Thanks again to everyone involved, and we really hope to see your 
>> endorsement on each of the submissions soon.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/21228cde/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 00:33:56 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:03:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <531808C4.4010101@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 06 March 2014 10:06 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>
> Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi 
> stakeholder ideas in your proposition.......
>

Andrew, you just said to Michael in your previous email

" ....which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly 
tedious length....."

Just reminding bec it seems you had forgotten.... and then also there 
was this later talk of insults and so on....

parminder

> which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to 
> explore.
>
> Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or 
> WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the 
> Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr 
> Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather 
> not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which 
> was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a 
> new era of global democracy).
>
> As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and 
> human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as 
> to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It 
> is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest 
> we terminate this exchange from now.
>
>
>
> From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
> To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but 
> ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my 
> off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…
>
> I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among 
> others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… 
> it’s complicated…
>
> It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting 
> technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, 
> developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… 
> And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not 
> multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could 
> accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and 
> participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to 
> strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to 
> get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this 
> would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but 
> interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the 
> consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.
>
> Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world 
> enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well 
> in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about 
> Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if 
> we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well 
> “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *
>
> (And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of 
> democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think 
> tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the 
> US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and 
> certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it 
> would appear**
>
> *Leonard Cohen.. 
> http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85
>
> **TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY 
> http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf
>
> M
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by 
> multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by 
> states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap 
> - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly 
> tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows 
> my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global 
> negotiations?
>
> Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range 
> of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in 
> the governance debate.
>
> Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is 
> to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Andrew (and Suresh…
>
> Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of 
> serious discussion and debate.
>
> However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, 
> undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer…
>
> The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever 
> they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it 
> isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone 
> a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).
>
> From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls 
> apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related 
> significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the 
> most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on 
> offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves 
> on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of 
> divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards 
> convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization 
> and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of 
> scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several 
> names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, 
> divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced 
> choices “or else…
>
> Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have 
> both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be 
> where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways 
> forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now 
> have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of 
> democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the 
> extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously 
> marginalized populations.
>
> I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically 
> supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this 
> goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the 
> broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public 
> good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension 
> to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and 
> methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in 
> opposition to the public interest.
>
> MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of 
> power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the 
> hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and 
> non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in 
> their structures.
>
> I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve 
> missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to 
> cut it.
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Michael
>
> Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make 
> governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and 
> accountable.  Clearly we failed.
>
> Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is 
> democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your 
> democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my 
> interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese 
> or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Reply-To: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
> *To: *"governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced 
> by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or 
> accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no 
> (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the 
> stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they 
> are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with 
> “role flexibilities”.
>
> Have I missed something here?
>
> This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the 
> curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we 
> have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the 
> strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust 
> them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering 
> Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a 
> slightly higher reality component.
>
> M
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy 
> Malcolm
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean */parity/* in */decision 
> making/* about */public policies /*between gov and non gov actors.... 
> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
> skirt it...
>
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all 
> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to 
> that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my 
> personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no 
> I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision 
> making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that 
> language being used.
>
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as 
> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a 
> "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may 
> be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one 
> of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For 
> example governments may take a leading role in transnational human 
> rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam 
> filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human 
> rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, 
> and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the 
> trading of IPv4 addresses.
>
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may 
> differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all 
> follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder 
> roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the 
> circumstances.
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
> to NetMundial
>
> ...
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it 
> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/c6d3a0ed/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 00:44:29 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:44:29 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [ciresearchers] Global Access to the Internet for
 All (GAIA) is an IRTF initiative
In-Reply-To: <F81A2CE4-EDF6-491C-A553-37DC1C43367F@1st-mile.org>
References: <23694649.9155.1394067909542.JavaMail.prodapps@nskntweba04-app> <F81A2CE4-EDF6-491C-A553-37DC1C43367F@1st-mile.org>
Message-ID: <0b6701cf38ff$25016ca0$6f0445e0$@gmail.com>

This was just sent to the Community Informatics elist by an old
friend/colleague who has been working in the grassroots ICT trenches since
there were such and probably before (currently mostly with  US Amerindian
folks in New Mexico.

 

It rather sums up my response to Andrew (and I'm looking forward to Andrew's
response to me. i.e. it is isn't simply about substituting one inadequate
system of governance for another one which seems to have its own (and
potentially worse sets of inadequacies and limitations) but rather of
finding ways forward to deepen and enrich what we already have with what we
now have come into possession of.

 

M

 

From: Richard Lowenberg [mailto:rl at 1st-mile.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:27 PM
To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; Don Cameron
Cc: jlfullsack at orange.fr; gurstein at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [ciresearchers] Global Access to the Internet for All (GAIA) is
an IRTF initiative

 

Don's good posting has provoked me to add a response that I think is
appropriate to this list and its subscribers.

I'll try to be brief.    Language and our use and understanding of it is
getting in the way of a fundamental concept.

 

If we are talking about broadband, and the Internet, and technologies, than
I'd generally agree with Don.

However, I think that something greater is going on.    Our tools are merely
helping us to extend our sensory minds and bodies.

 

If we even partially agree with the human/social evolutionary trajectory,
that we are developing from agrarian, to industrial and manufacturing, to
information and services based, to ecologically intelligent societies (or
bust), than this is about more than just the tech.    By whatever miraculous
reason, humans are increasingly tuning in to the all-permeating and
surrounding information ecosystem.   The fundamental concept of the Internet
is a beautiful evolutionary reality.   For the first time in our
developmentally complex history, we are growing the means for highly complex
inter-personal, and local-global communications networking.    We are early
into it, and we've never done it before, so we're making many mistakes.
We are also growing this technology-facilitated system, with our technical
sensory aids, in a time of many other emergent eco-social mistakes, old
contrivances, dangerous conflicts and plenty of corruption.    We are on a
path, a treacherous one, but also a potentially inspiring one.     

 

Just as 'freedom of speech' has become a human right, our ability to be
intelligent, open-minded, lifelong-learning, creative and healthily
networked people and societies, should be a fundamental human right.    The
tools (the Internet, fiber-optic and wireless spectrum infrastructure, and
the energy  and resources saving systems) are our way of 'tuning in'.
Amid the treachery and the daunting challenges we face, the potential of a
more appropriately and intelligently grown networked society, is a shining
light.     That's why we are all on this list and doing what we are doing.

 

Participation in an 'open information and communications environment' ought
to be a fundamental human right.   We are far from it, and may not get
there.     Our right to be humane is a much greater eco-social challenge
than simply the right to have open networks, and addressing who owns and who
rents access to the tools.    We have our work cut out for us.

 

Richard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140305/4e78ab66/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Thu Mar  6 00:46:26 2014
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 05:46:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>

"not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”

Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire for democracy and accountability as you but have a different understanding of how to reach it

Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list


From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

Tks,

M

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.


From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf


M

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Andrew (and Suresh…

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate.

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer…

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).

From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices “or else…

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest.

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their structures.

I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.

Mike



From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Michael

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?




From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

Have I missed something here?

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

M

From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:




So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.




BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org<http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/27ed29b3/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 00:56:50 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 11:26:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>

p
On Thursday 06 March 2014 11:16 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> "not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”
>
> Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire 
> for democracy and accountability as you but have a 
> different understanding of how to reach it

I have tried my best, in last many months/ years, but have been unable 
to understand how getting big business reps to have "equal footing" 
parity with government reps (however imperfectly elected govs they may 
come from) in terms of /*making actual decisions on public policy 
issues*/ is compatible with democracy. That is what I call anti- or 
post-democracy.

And that is the precise issue/ question I posted yesterday with respect 
to the principles submission proposed by some civil society groups 
including yours, but got no response.

However, if you think it is compatible with democracy do please explain. 
We will withdraw the the anti-democratic label..

>
> Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list

Else, this kind of stuff is simply rhetoric - asking for mental 
exercises and all.

parminder
>
>
> From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
> To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. 
> but anyway…
>
> I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I 
> think are serious issues concerning MSism…
>
> I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters 
> to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something 
> with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires 
> and Mr. Cameron…
>
> The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” *_9 times_* in 
> less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).
>
> You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism. Perhaps you could give 
> me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments 
> are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.
>
> Tks,
>
> M
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi 
> stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and 
> in a different mood would be good to explore.
>
> Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or 
> WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the 
> Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr 
> Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather 
> not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which 
> was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a 
> new era of global democracy).
>
> As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and 
> human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as 
> to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It 
> is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest 
> we terminate this exchange from now.
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but 
> ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my 
> off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…
>
> I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among 
> others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… 
> it’s complicated…
>
> It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting 
> technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, 
> developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… 
> And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not 
> multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could 
> accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and 
> participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to 
> strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to 
> get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this 
> would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but 
> interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the 
> consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.
>
> Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world 
> enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well 
> in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about 
> Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if 
> we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well 
> “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *
>
> (And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of 
> democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think 
> tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the 
> US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and 
> certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it 
> would appear**
>
> *Leonard Cohen.. 
> http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85
>
> **TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY 
> http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf
>
> M
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I’m sorry Mike ���you are not answering the question.  If you mean by 
> multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by 
> states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap 
> - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly 
> tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows 
> my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global 
> negotiations?
>
> Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range 
> of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in 
> the governance debate.
>
> Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is 
> to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Andrew (and Suresh…
>
> Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of 
> serious discussion and debate.
>
> However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, 
> undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer…
>
> The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever 
> they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it 
> isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone 
> a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).
>
> From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls 
> apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related 
> significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the 
> most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on 
> offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves 
> on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of 
> divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards 
> convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization 
> and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of 
> scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several 
> names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, 
> divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced 
> choices “or else…
>
> Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have 
> both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be 
> where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways 
> forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now 
> have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of 
> democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the 
> extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously 
> marginalized populations.
>
> I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically 
> supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this 
> goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the 
> broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public 
> good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension 
> to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and 
> methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in 
> opposition to the public interest.
>
> MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of 
> power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the 
> hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and 
> non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in 
> their structures.
>
> I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve 
> missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to 
> cut it.
>
> Mike
>
> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> Michael
>
> Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make 
> governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and 
> accountable.  Clearly we failed.
>
> Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is 
> democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your 
> democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my 
> interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese 
> or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?
>
> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Reply-To: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
> *To: *"governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced 
> by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or 
> accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no 
> (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the 
> stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they 
> are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with 
> “role flexibilities”.
>
> Have I missed something here?
>
> This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the 
> curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we 
> have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the 
> strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust 
> them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering 
> Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a 
> slightly higher reality component.
>
> M
>
> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy 
> Malcolm
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> So, request a clear response - do you mean */parity/* in */decision 
> making/* about */public policies /*between gov and non gov actors.... 
> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
> skirt it...
>
> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all 
> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to 
> that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my 
> personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no 
> I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision 
> making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that 
> language being used.
>
> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as 
> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a 
> "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may 
> be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one 
> of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For 
> example governments may take a leading role in transnational human 
> rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam 
> filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human 
> rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, 
> and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the 
> trading of IPv4 addresses.
>
> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may 
> differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all 
> follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder 
> roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the 
> circumstances.
>
>
>
>
>
> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
> to NetMundial
>
> ...
>
> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>
> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it 
> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>
> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>
> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk -F! 
> '{print $3}'
>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/bd8de52d/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 01:23:05 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 22:23:05 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0bc701cf3904$89854a20$9c8fde60$@gmail.com>

When I started out in this space I believed as you suggest… no particular reason not to… but as time went on and the objective positions that people were taking so clearly lined up in support of corporate interests and the interests of particular governments it got increasingly difficult to maintain that position since clearly those interests that they were supporting were not, to my mind consistent with “democracy and accountability” or with anything that I understood as being the on-going concerns of CS in the larger world… 

 

And then with the WCIT when there was this lemming like stampede to line up behind the US State Department and Google for the Internet Freedom crusade… no reflection on what the positioning behind that crusade might mean in a larger global context or even in a serious thinking about things like taxation, or security, or even real measures to protect diversity and freedom of expression online.  As I said at the time CS is either naïve or bought given the positions they are articulating.  

 

Mr. Snowden has proven the correctness of my analysis at the time but I have yet to hear any reflections by any of the CS (or other) Internet Freedom “crusaders” on their ill-advised positioning.

 

So I guess if stating the truth is insulting, so be it.

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:46 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

"not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”

 

Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire for democracy and accountability as you but have a different understanding of how to reach it 

 

Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list

 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

 

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

 

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

 

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

 

Tks,

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

 

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).    

 

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.

 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

 

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

 

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Andrew (and Suresh…

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer… 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains). 

 

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Thu Mar  6 01:36:06 2014
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:36:06 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>

Assuming we’re genuinely trying to understand each other’s positions, my views on the short comings of the current system and proposals to move the debate forward are expressed in the submission to Netmundial
At http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/  which was available for comment for a month or more on the BB list – (without anyone providing substantial comments except for Marilia). It sets out my take on the issue.

I think that achieving a democratic approach to internet governance is enormously challenging and this is the best option of those practically available.

Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).   I think this would be catastrophic for the internet's ability to promote free speech and open communication.  I look at   the Human Rights Council – occasionally chaired by some of the most hostile governments to human rights and see that it  has often been catastrophic to human rights .

Nor do I  see your distinction between government and business – don’t you think that the CCP central committee are also the wealthiest businessmen in China? – that in most repressive societies (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia) business and government are utterly intertwined – do you want  such governments/business interests to dominate internet policy?   You must know from your time at WGEC that this what they want?.  Who represents my interests as a user in such a world? How is anyone represented?

And to be clear - I say this with respect for your position as I think you have valid concerns and we probably share the same goals – while clearly disagreeing on the means


From: "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:56
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

p
On Thursday 06 March 2014 11:16 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
"not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”

Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire for democracy and accountability as you but have a different understanding of how to reach it

I have tried my best, in last many months/ years, but have been unable to understand how getting big business reps to have "equal footing" parity with government reps (however imperfectly elected govs they may come from) in terms of making actual decisions on public policy issues is compatible with democracy. That is what I call anti- or post-democracy.

And that is the precise issue/ question I posted yesterday with respect to the principles submission proposed by some civil society groups including yours, but got no response.

However, if you think it is compatible with democracy do please explain. We will withdraw the the anti-democratic label..


Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list

Else, this kind of stuff is simply rhetoric - asking for mental exercises and all.

parminder


From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net><mailto:bestbits at lists.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

Tks,

M

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.


From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf


M

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Andrew (and Suresh…

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate.

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer…

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).

From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices “or else…

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest.

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their structures.

I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.

Mike



From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Michael

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?




From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net<mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

Have I missed something here?

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

M

From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:




So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.




BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org<http://e164.org>|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/cbe2613b/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 02:33:30 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 23:33:30 -0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0bf801cf390e$5f7fcc50$1e7f64f0$@gmail.com>

Thanks for the pointer… I did in fact comment on a much earlier version (as circulated as part of a larger email by, I believe Matthew, but this is a good place to begin a useful discussion I think.

 

Reading your contribution I’m left with more questions than answers I’m afraid..

1.       What are the details for the formation/determination of “stakeholders”—do they pursue their interests/stakes or do they pursue the public good

a.       How are divergent interests/conflicts within stakeholder groups handled

b.      Is this transparent

c.       What are the accountability mechanisms here

d.      Who/how is “legitimacy” accorded/denied—by what authority

e.      Who gives legitimacy to the legitimizers

2.       Decision making processes—i.e. how are divergent interests/conflicts between stakeholders handled 

a.       who gets to deny consensus and how can we be at all certain that the result is in the public interest—

b.      can/should those with specific private interests be in a position to deny consensus/force consensus on their terms (Parminder’s point about the private sector being equal with governments in making decisions) 

c.       Is there an artificial drive to a forced consensus

d.      Can private interests drive decisions and what is to prevent this

e.      Is there such a thing as “conflict of interest”—who is responsible for this—how is it policed, sanctions

3.       How to ensure true diversity of opinion including among those who challenge the way in which the issues are framed—diversity of “identity” is relatively easy, normative diversity is rather more difficult to achieve and handle 

4.       How is the very real danger of capture guarded against

5.       What would be the process of deepening participation/consultation

 

These are things that occur to me off the top.. I could elaborate on any of these questions as might be useful.

 

Mike

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:36 PM
To: parminder; michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Assuming we’re genuinely trying to understand each other’s positions, my views on the short comings of the current system and proposals to move the debate forward are expressed in the submission to Netmundial

At http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/  which was available for comment for a month or more on the BB list – (without anyone providing substantial comments except for Marilia). It sets out my take on the issue.

 

I think that achieving a democratic approach to internet governance is enormously challenging and this is the best option of those practically available.  

 

Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).   I think this would be catastrophic for the internet's ability to promote free speech and open communication.  I look at   the Human Rights Council – occasionally chaired by some of the most hostile governments to human rights and see that it  has often been catastrophic to human rights .  

 

Nor do I  see your distinction between government and business – don’t you think that the CCP central committee are also the wealthiest businessmen in China? – that in most repressive societies (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia) business and government are utterly intertwined – do you want  such governments/business interests to dominate internet policy?   You must know from your time at WGEC that this what they want?.  Who represents my interests as a user in such a world? How is anyone represented?

 

And to be clear - I say this with respect for your position as I think you have valid concerns and we probably share the same goals – while clearly disagreeing on the means

 

 

From: "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:56
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

p

On Thursday 06 March 2014 11:16 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

"not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”

 

Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire for democracy and accountability as you but have a different understanding of how to reach it  


I have tried my best, in last many months/ years, but have been unable to understand how getting big business reps to have "equal footing" parity with government reps (however imperfectly elected govs they may come from) in terms of making actual decisions on public policy issues is compatible with democracy. That is what I call anti- or post-democracy.

And that is the precise issue/ question I posted yesterday with respect to the principles submission proposed by some civil society groups including yours, but got no response.

However, if you think it is compatible with democracy do please explain. We will withdraw the the anti-democratic label..




 

Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list


Else, this kind of stuff is simply rhetoric - asking for mental exercises and all. 

parminder 



 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: " <mailto:bestbits at lists.net> <bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway…

 

I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSism…

 

I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron…

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” 9 times in less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).

 

You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.

 

Tks,

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

 

Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).    

 

As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.

 

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very question… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I’m sorry Mike ��� you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?

 

Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

 

Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Andrew (and Suresh…

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate. 

 

However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any closer… 

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains). 

 

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Mar  6 03:14:44 2014
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 10:14:44 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>

Dear all

Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use
of 'multilateral'.

The full text in Theme 6.1 is:

"Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the
full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
international organisations. No single government should have a
pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."

When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense
as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries. 
We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.

In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how
we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the
private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single
government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
internet governance."

Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term
multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning
"among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we
certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one
government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of
other stakeholders too.

Best

Anriette


On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf
>>>> has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to
>>>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free
>>>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the
>>>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>
>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>
>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>> /*
>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/ and whether it is different from
>>>> what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so,
>>>> how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders,
>>>> including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in
>>>> making decisions about public policies. Please address this point
>>>> specifically. 
>>>
>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this
>>> on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for
>>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times
>>> it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable
>>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the
>>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the
>>> stakeholder roles should be.
>>
>>
>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>
>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision
>> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
>
>
> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS
> contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder
> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>
> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral
> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be
> multilateral and democratic. "
>
> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present
> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come
> from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>
> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted
> as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE
> principles, and G 8 principles....
>
> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term
> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary
> fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>
> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society
> actors in IG space - come up with .....
>
> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this
> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency,
> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder
> participation */" (emphasis added)
>
> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word
> 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone
> and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know
> which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this
> doc.
>
> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get
> caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of
> the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic
> world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that
> a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the
> powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>
> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable
> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting
> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches
> what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US
> supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from
> NetMundial...... All of piece.
>
> parminder
>
>
>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got
>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important
>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest
>> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not
>> skirt it...
>>
>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission
>> to NetMundial
>>
>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the
>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public
>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy
>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect
>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that
>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under
>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate
>> basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical
>> provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to
>> do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
>> credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and
>> particularly the technical community significantly influence and
>> encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the
>> internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to
>> the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of
>> expression, access to information and ideas and democratic
>> participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need
>> to work together."
>>
>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk
>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>
>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>
>>
>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/36ed3720/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 03:49:04 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:19:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 06 March 2014 12:06 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> Assuming we’re genuinely trying to understand each other’s positions, 
> my views on the short comings of the current system and proposals to 
> move the debate forward are expressed in the submission to Netmundial
> At http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/ which was available for 
> comment for a month or more on the BB list – (without anyone providing 
> substantial comments except for Marilia). It sets out my take on the 
> issue.
>
> I think that achieving a democratic approach to internet governance is 
> enormously challenging and this is the best option of those 
> practically available.

I will comment on this approach you take in the above proposed 
submission in my next email, first on the principle level issue of who 
makes public policy decisions...

>
> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments 
> should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they 
> are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I 
> misunderstand you).

You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies 
the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is 
so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, 
or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we 
got... We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my 
organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to 
help, but not do, policy making.

However, your poser clearly shows that you believe that this should not 
be the case... In that case please let me know /*who should take the 
public policy decisions, and how*/? To be clear on this is important 
because there are an enormous number of public policy issues to be 
sorted out and default/ status quo simply benefits that economically and 
politically most powerful. This is a direct question.

To note, your proposed roadmap proposes no model for public policy 
decision making, only for agenda developing and vetting..... Apparently, 
decisions are still to be made in an inter- governmental manner by 
existing global policy bodies. Right? Please do let me know if I am 
wrong...Again a direct question.

So, unlike, what you claim about Michael's position, it is you who do 
not have a model for making global Internet related public policy 
decisions, rather than he. However, if I am wrong and you do have a 
model, lets see it, and we can comment on it.

I hope it is not your case that there are not significant global 
Internet related public policy issues to be sorted out. But if that is 
the case, lets discuss that particular issue. It is good to be specific. 
(BTW, do see numerous developing country, including Brazil's, submission 
to WGEC on such outstanding Internet-related public policy issues)


> I think this would be catastrophic for the internet's ability to 
> promote free speech and open communication.  I look at   the Human 
> Rights Council – occasionally chaired by some of the most hostile 
> governments to human rights and see that it  has often been 
> catastrophic to human rights .

When I look at my parliament, I consider it catastrophic in many 
manners, but still it does not take away my belief in parliamentary 
democracy. Just need to improve things by and by. BTW, human rights 
council did adopt the privacy resolution recently, which is quite good 
and also rather specific.... This is much more than IGF has achieved in 
10 years -- just to take one instance, when the whole world is reeling 
under net neutrality erosions, this issue has successfully been 
prevented to be discussed as a main session policy issue at the IGF. Who 
prevented it. Make a guess.  I can write a full story how it has been 
done (BTW try reading transcripts of feb 2012 MAG meeting in Paris).
>
> Nor do I  see your distinction between government and business

Well, that is a problem.. and represents a fundamental disbelief in 
politics and democracy, which I cannot do much about.. But still, coming 
from you I am a bit shocked to hear this....


> – don’t you think that the CCP central committee are also the 
> wealthiest businessmen in China? – that in most repressive societies 
> (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia) business and government are 
> utterly intertwined – do you want  such governments/business interests 
> to dominate internet policy?

Andrew, your statement of the problem is - the existing so called 
democratic governance systems are dominated by business interests. I 
agree, and we must do something about it. A lot of democracy movements 
worldwide, in which I participate, are doing something about it. What I 
cannot understand or agree with is your solution.... How does giving 
formal political power to those same big businesses - through 
multistakeholder decision making - solves or even begins to address that 
problem... Does it not simply exacerbates it -- with not even a possible 
eventual solution, because we would have normatively and structurally 
admitted dominance of big business.... Sorry, but I simply do not get this.


>   You must know from your time at WGEC that this what they want?.

In my time at WGEC, I see big business reps, and compliant civil 
society, simply shout down any possibility of global addressing of key 
and pressing Internet related public policy issues -- which simply helps 
big monopolies and oligopolies keep stuffing their safes more and more 
at the expense of public interest.

>  Who represents my interests as a user in such a world? How is anyone 
> represented?

Yes, those are key questions.... And my answer is - giving big business 
formal political power is going in exactly the opposite directions from 
improving people's representativity in policy processes. We should try 
to reduce the power of big business, bot sanctify and formalise it...

parminder
>
> And to be clear - I say this with respect for your position as I think 
> you have valid concerns and we probably share the same goals – while 
> clearly disagreeing on the means
>
>
> From: "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:56
> To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>
> Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>
> p
> On Thursday 06 March 2014 11:16 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>> "not really sure what you are seeing as an insult”
>>
>> Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire 
>> for democracy and accountability as you but have a 
>> different understanding of how to reach it
>
> I have tried my best, in last many months/ years, but have been unable 
> to understand how getting big business reps to have "equal footing" 
> parity with government reps (however imperfectly elected govs they may 
> come from) in terms of /*making actual decisions on public policy 
> issues*/ is compatible with democracy. That is what I call anti- or 
> post-democracy.
>
> And that is the precise issue/ question I posted yesterday with 
> respect to the principles submission proposed by some civil society 
> groups including yours, but got no response.
>
> However, if you think it is compatible with democracy do please 
> explain. We will withdraw the the anti-democratic label..
>
>>
>> Just try that mental exercise, re read your e-mails to the list
>
> Else, this kind of stuff is simply rhetoric - asking for mental 
> exercises and all.
>
> parminder
>>
>>
>> From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
>> To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
>> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
>> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
>> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>> Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions 
>> launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. 
>> but anyway…
>>
>> I’ve taken the trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I 
>> think are serious issues concerning MSism…
>>
>> I’m still waiting for you or anyone to make some significant counters 
>> to those arguments or even address them in some serious way 
>> (something with a bit more substance than red herrings about Chinese 
>> billionaires and Mr. Cameron…
>>
>> The US submission to the NETMundial refers to “MSism” *_9 times_* in 
>> less than a page (it doesn’t mention democracy even once).
>>
>> You are evidently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could 
>> give me a response to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my 
>> arguments are incorrect or my experiences are inconclusive.
>>
>> Tks,
>>
>> M
>>
>> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
>> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and multi 
>> stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and 
>> in a different mood would be good to explore.
>>
>> Unfortunately your ideas don’t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or 
>> WSIS reviews and I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the 
>> Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr 
>> Cameron my own prime minister would be too interested.  So I’d rather 
>> not see them in control of the internet thank you very much – which 
>> was inter state governance would mean (as opposed to ushering in a 
>> new era of global democracy).
>>
>> As it happens I’ve spent thirty years trying to promote democracy and 
>> human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I’m curious 
>> as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with 
>> you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience so 
>> I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.
>>
>> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
>> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
>> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
>> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
>> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> Ah… the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering but 
>> ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the world… So my 
>> off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much…
>>
>> I did a major project in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki 
>> among others addressing more or less this very question… and the 
>> answer was… it’s complicated…
>>
>> It involved strengthening broad structures of governance, putting 
>> technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training, 
>> developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making… 
>> And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not 
>> multistakeholderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could 
>> accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and 
>> participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to 
>> strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to 
>> get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this 
>> would be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but 
>> interwoven with them to use the democracy to reinforce the 
>> consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the 
>> democracy.
>>
>> Sorry if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world 
>> enough and time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as 
>> well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… not sure about 
>> Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teeside and if 
>> we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside – well 
>> “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *
>>
>> (And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of 
>> democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think 
>> tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested cabal of the 
>> US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private corps, and 
>> certain selected “civil society” organizations including your own it 
>> would appear**
>>
>> *Leonard Cohen.. 
>> http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85
>>
>> **TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY 
>> http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf
>>
>> M
>>
>> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
>> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> I’m sorry Mike ���you are not answering the question.  If you mean by 
>> multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted 
>> by states I want to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is 
>> crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great and 
>> increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative 
>> that allows my interests – or any other citizens to be represented in 
>> global negotiations?
>>
>> Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader 
>> range of voices – including states of course as the most powerful 
>> actors- in the governance debate.
>>
>> Put your option up for discussion and let’s see how democratic that 
>> is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)
>>
>> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> *Date: *Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
>> *To: *andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org 
>> <mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
>> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
>> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> Andrew (and Suresh…
>>
>> Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of 
>> serious discussion and debate.
>>
>> However, evoking (over and over and over…) the undefined, 
>> undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn’t get us any 
>> closer…
>>
>> The continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme 
>> whenever they are challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite 
>> “MSism”, it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, 
>> doesn’t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).
>>
>> From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets real” it falls 
>> apart—either it doesn’t have any operational processes or related 
>> significant structures of accountability so it can’t handle even the 
>> most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on 
>> offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and 
>> moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of 
>> divergences/diversities of opinion—the drive towards 
>> convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of 
>> marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any 
>> real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot of 
>> experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn’t 
>> deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed 
>> consensus and forced choices “or else…
>>
>> Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they 
>> have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us 
>> to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable 
>> ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover 
>> we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the 
>> extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of 
>> diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective 
>> participation to previously marginalized populations.
>>
>> I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically 
>> supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this 
>> goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the 
>> broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public 
>> good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension 
>> to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and 
>> methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in 
>> opposition to the public interest.
>>
>> MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power—shifting of 
>> power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the 
>> hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and 
>> non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in 
>> their structures.
>>
>> I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve 
>> missed something but another round of “trust them/us” is not going to 
>> cut it.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> *From:*Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
>> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make 
>> governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and 
>> accountable.  Clearly we failed.
>>
>> Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is 
>> democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is 
>> your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my 
>> interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese 
>> or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?
>>
>> *From: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> *Reply-To: *michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
>> *To: *"governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Jeremy Malcolm 
>> <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au <mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>, 
>> "parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" 
>> <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>> *Cc: *"<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net>>" 
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced 
>> by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) 
>> or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, 
>> no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and 
>> the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since 
>> they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr… those 
>> with “role flexibilities”.
>>
>> Have I missed something here?
>>
>> This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the 
>> curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—we 
>> have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulling 
>> the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of 
>> “trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “Steering 
>> Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something with a 
>> slightly higher reality component.
>>
>> M
>>
>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy 
>> Malcolm
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder
>> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial 
>> submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
>>
>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So, request a clear response - do you mean */parity/* in */decision 
>> making/* about */public policies /*between gov and non gov actors.... 
>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest 
>> is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not 
>> skirt it...
>>
>> Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all 
>> endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to 
>> that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my 
>> personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no 
>> I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision 
>> making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that 
>> language being used.
>>
>> For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as 
>> equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a 
>> "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may 
>> be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one 
>> of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For 
>> example governments may take a leading role in transnational human 
>> rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam 
>> filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human 
>> rights based principles for judging government surveillance 
>> practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting 
>> prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.
>>
>> This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may 
>> differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all 
>> follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder 
>> roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the 
>> circumstances.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission 
>> to NetMundial
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>
>> Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it 
>> maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>
>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/58b5b2b8/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 04:07:16 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:37:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
Message-ID: <53183AC4.5080108@itforchange.net>

Anriette

I dont think the meaning of multilateral - in terms of global governance 
- has changed since 2001. It is the same. it was never necessarily 
involving only  governments (UNESCO is and was always multi-lateral, but 
involves so many non-gov parties in such deep measures) but yes public 
policy decision making was by governments ..... But of course APC is the 
best judge and exponent of how the term is used in APC's charter..

In any case, since this point in APC charter is about oversight of the 
Internet, what is written in the APC charter certainly goes completely 
against the proposed submission on the BB platform on ICANN matters..

  parminder


On Thursday 06 March 2014 01:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the 
> use of 'multilateral'.
>
> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>
> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the 
> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and 
> international organisations. No single government should have a 
> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>
> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary 
> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple 
> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>
> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines 
> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, 
> the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No 
> single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to 
> international internet governance."
>
> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term 
> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning 
> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we 
> certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no 
> one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement 
> of other stakeholders too.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf 
>>>>> has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to 
>>>>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free 
>>>>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the 
>>>>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>>> /*
>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from 
>>>>> what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, 
>>>>> how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, 
>>>>> including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in 
>>>>> making decisions about public policies. Please address this point 
>>>>> specifically.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this 
>>>> on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for 
>>>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times 
>>>> it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable 
>>>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the 
>>>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the 
>>>> stakeholder roles should be.
>>>
>>>
>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>>
>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision 
>>> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
>>
>>
>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this 
>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder 
>> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>
>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral 
>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be 
>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>
>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present 
>> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come 
>> from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>>
>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted 
>> as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE 
>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>
>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and 
>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term 
>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much 
>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>
>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil 
>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>
>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this 
>> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance 
>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, 
>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder 
>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>
>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word 
>> 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to 
>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... 
>> Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away 
>> from this doc.
>>
>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to 
>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin 
>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post 
>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is 
>> a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan 
>> Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>
>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable 
>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging 
>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting 
>> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches 
>> what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US 
>> supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from 
>> NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
>>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
>>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - 
>>> rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and 
>>> not skirt it...
>>>
>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its 
>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>
>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the 
>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public 
>>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy 
>>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect 
>>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that 
>>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under 
>>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the 
>>> appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and 
>>> technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should 
>>> continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of 
>>> empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The 
>>> private sector and particularly the technical community 
>>> significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution 
>>> and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In 
>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, 
>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas 
>>> and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all 
>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>
>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>
>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see 
>>>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/66e5bc7b/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Sun Mar  2 23:30:27 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:30:27 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: U.S. submission to the Council Working Group on
 International Internet-Related Public Policy
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAf=m_-4xNBGwn1U0K7BUW7hgzh8GJOQaTk8-=7MhiGbcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAf=m_-4xNBGwn1U0K7BUW7hgzh8GJOQaTk8-=7MhiGbcw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdGmTGR30JMDL8=x5AWGOm=xa9OLTyZt4WPkj5k_nc6=A@mail.gmail.com>

will anybody from this list be following this meeting?

http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Please find attached the U.S. submission to the Council Working Group on
> International Internet-Related Public Policy (CWG-Internet), which
> addresses the role of governments in a variety of policy areas. This was
> made public today.
>
>
> The next meeting the CWG-Internet will be held in Geneva, March 3-4.
>
>
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140302/d523a01f/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Mar  6 04:15:26 2014
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:15:26 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Just Net Coalition contribution on Principles for
 Netmundial.br
Message-ID: <20140306101526.7a850a03@quill>

(I'm posting this, in separate messages, to the IGC, BestBits and /1net
mailing lists; my apologies if this results in you receiving multiple
copies.)


Dear all

Last month I had the pleasure to participate in a meeting in New Delhi
of a fairly large number of civil society people who agree that in
Internet governance, the emphasis on human rights and social justice
must be increased.

This meeting has led us to decide to get organized under the name "Just
Net Coalition".

We have also agreed on the attached "principles" document and submitted
it to the NETmundial.br meeting.

Gretings,
Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Just_Net_Coalition_Principles_Brazil_sub1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 79143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/9df52661/attachment.pdf>

From joy at apc.org  Thu Mar  6 04:55:26 2014
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 22:55:26 +1300
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5318460E.7080301@apc.org>

As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full
quote in Theme 6.1 is:

    Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the
    full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society
    and international organisations. No single government should have a
    pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance.

This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are
not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on
record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are
simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits
submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken together,
certain principles relevant to internet governance can be deduced and
should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human rights.

I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.

It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best
Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant
to internet governance
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing
so; and
c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore
should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though
they can of course be involved/consulted) .

Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which
is relevant to internet governance
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
parity with each other when doing so;

Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which
simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial
is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human
rights (among others) are relevant to them.


Joy
Joy
On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the
> use of 'multilateral'.
>
> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>
> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the
> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
> international organisations. No single government should have a
> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>
> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary
> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple
> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>
> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines
> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments,
> the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No
> single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to
> international internet governance."
>
> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term
> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning
> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we
> certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no
> one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement
> of other stakeholders too.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf
>>>>> has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to
>>>>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free
>>>>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the
>>>>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>>> /*
>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/ and whether it is different from
>>>>> what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so,
>>>>> how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders,
>>>>> including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in
>>>>> making decisions about public policies. Please address this point
>>>>> specifically. 
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this
>>>> on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for
>>>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times
>>>> it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable
>>>> participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the
>>>> different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the
>>>> stakeholder roles should be.
>>>
>>>
>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>>
>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision
>>> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
>>
>>
>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this
>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder
>> governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>
>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral
>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be
>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>
>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present
>> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come
>> from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.
>>
>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted
>> as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE
>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>
>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term
>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>
>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>
>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this
>> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency,
>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder
>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>
>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word
>> 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to
>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group....
>> Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away
>> from this doc.
>>
>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to
>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin
>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post
>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is
>> a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan
>> Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>
>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable
>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging
>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting
>> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches
>> what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US
>> supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from
>> NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got
>>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important
>>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point -
>>> rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and
>>> not skirt it...
>>>
>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>
>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the
>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public
>>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy
>>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect
>>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that
>>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under
>>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the
>>> appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and
>>> technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should
>>> continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of
>>> empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The
>>> private sector and particularly the technical community
>>> significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution
>>> and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas
>>> and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>
>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk
>>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>
>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see
>>>> http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/e33722df/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joy.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/e33722df/attachment.vcf>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 05:36:23 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:06:23 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Just Net Coalition contribution on
 Principles for Netmundial.br
In-Reply-To: <20140306111504.4cb36b3c@quill>
References: <20140306101520.0f505c82@quill>	<10CCDF21-6F90-4377-8BA9-2B789F44723C@hserus.net> <20140306111504.4cb36b3c@quill>
Message-ID: <53184FA7.1060602@itforchange.net>

It was basically a global meeting and not an Indian one - with about 25 
international participants and maybe 10 Indian... just from the top of 
my head..

The draft principles were adopted at the meeting, and have been further 
fine tuned and elaborated since for the Brazil submission, which is at 
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/towards-a-just-and-equitable-internet-for-all/110 
.

These principles are now begin finalised as a collective work in form of 
what will be called as 'Delhi Declaration for an Equitable and Just 
Internet', likely by 15th March.

parminder


On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Norbert, it would help if a list of the current signatories to
>> this document (you, Indian NGOs ..) could be appended to the document.
> At the current stage what we have is a consensus decision to form the
> "Just Net Coalition" and a consensus decision to submit this document,
> but we haven't completed the process of working out the Terms of
> Reference or Charter (or whatever it'll get called) of Just Net
> Coalition nor of figuring out the coalition's precise initial
> composition (in the sense of who are organisational members and who
> are individual members).
>
> But I absolutely agree, this needs to be sorted out ASAP, so that a
> “list of the current signatories” can indeed be appended.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>>> On 06-Mar-2014, at 14:45, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> (I'm posting this, in separate messages, to the IGC, BestBits
>>> and /1net mailing lists; my apologies if this results in you
>>> receiving multiple copies.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Last month I had the pleasure to participate in a meeting in New
>>> Delhi of a fairly large number of civil society people who agree
>>> that in Internet governance, the emphasis on human rights and
>>> social justice must be increased.
>>>
>>> This meeting has led us to decide to get organized under the name
>>> "Just Net Coalition".
>>>
>>> We have also agreed on the attached "principles" document and
>>> submitted it to the NETmundial.br meeting.
>>>
>>> Gretings,
>>> Norbert
>>> <Just_Net_Coalition_Principles_Brazil_sub1.pdf>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/da5febf4/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 06:44:13 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 06:44:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
Message-ID: <nbh64h3p0odxbpm9ggnx59sn.1394106253718@email.android.com>

+1

-------- Original message --------
From: joy <joy at apc.org> 
Date: 03/06/2014  4:55 AM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>,parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>,"&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net 
 
As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
Internet governance should be multilateral and       democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance.
This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human rights.

I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.

It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant to internet governance
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing so; and 
c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .

Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that 
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which is relevant to internet governance
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or parity with each other when doing so; 

Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them. 


Joy
Joy
On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Dear all

Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use of 'multilateral'.

The full text in Theme 6.1 is:

"Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."

When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.

In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."

Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as       meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.

Best

Anriette


On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:

On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:

On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!

Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.

I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...

Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder participation" and whether it is different from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please address this point specifically.

Yes, you picked up on a key point. There was a discussion of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles. At various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.


I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.

So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors....


It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..

In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The             right to multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic. "

Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -         does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.

Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also         quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and G 8 principles....

In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)

Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil         society actors in IG space - come up with .....

There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and equitable multistakeholder participation " (emphasis added)

In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc. 

And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order. 

See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of         piece.

parminder


And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

"Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the people, possess public authority including internet-related public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

parminder





--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/cfb7ebee/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Mar  6 07:02:41 2014
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:32:41 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions
 launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
In-Reply-To: <5318460E.7080301@apc.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <531718AC.3040402@itforchange.net> <53182E74.5060401@apc.org> <5318460E.7080301@apc.org>
Message-ID: <531863E1.7030705@itforchange.net>

Joy

You clarify the difference between two positions very well..

So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society 
statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov  
participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as 
gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*.

*/Fine. There is no room for confusion now.

  I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.

Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, 
which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying 
statements.

parminder

PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy - 
or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I 
hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. 
Thanks.

/*
*/
On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the 
> full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
>
>     Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
>     the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
>     society and international organisations. No single government
>     should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
>     internet governance.
>
> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes 
> are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been 
> on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these 
> are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best 
> Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken 
> together, certain principles relevant to internet governance can be 
> deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human 
> rights.
>
> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 
> recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.
>
> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the 
> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is 
> relevant to internet governance
> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when 
> doing so; and
> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore 
> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though 
> they can of course be involved/consulted) .
>
> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy 
> which is relevant to internet governance
> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or 
> parity with each other when doing so;
>
> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which 
> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles 
> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation 
> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.
>
>
> Joy
> Joy
> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the 
>> use of 'multilateral'.
>>
>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is:
>>
>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the 
>> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society 
>> and international organisations. No single government should have a 
>> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."
>>
>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary 
>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple 
>> countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.
>>
>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines 
>> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of 
>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in 
>> relation to international internet governance."
>>
>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term 
>> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning 
>> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we 
>> certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no 
>> one government should dominate - but in the context of the 
>> involvement of other stakeholders too.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf 
>>>>>> has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to 
>>>>>> Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free 
>>>>>> and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the 
>>>>>> decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed 
>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP 
>>>>>> Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable 
>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different from 
>>>>>> what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, 
>>>>>> how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, 
>>>>>> including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) 
>>>>>> in making decisions about public policies. Please address this 
>>>>>> point specifically.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this 
>>>>> on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for 
>>>>> yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various 
>>>>> times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became 
>>>>> "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to 
>>>>> accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how 
>>>>> equal the stakeholder roles should be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.
>>>>
>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in /*decision 
>>>> making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non gov actors.... 
>>>
>>>
>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this 
>>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not 
>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..
>>>
>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral 
>>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be 
>>> multilateral and democratic. "
>>>
>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present 
>>> submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not 
>>> come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle 
>>> inspirations.
>>>
>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted 
>>> as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE 
>>> principles, and G 8 principles....
>>>
>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and 
>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term 
>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much 
>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)
>>>
>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil 
>>> society actors in IG space - come up with .....
>>>
>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this 
>>> doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance 
>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, 
>>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder 
>>> participation */" (emphasis added)
>>>
>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the 
>>> word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to 
>>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... 
>>> Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay 
>>> away from this doc.
>>>
>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to 
>>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin 
>>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post 
>>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is 
>>> a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan 
>>> Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.
>>>
>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable 
>>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging 
>>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting 
>>> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it 
>>> matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present 
>>> of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the 
>>> outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got 
>>>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important 
>>>> point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - 
>>>> rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and 
>>>> not skirt it...
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its 
>>>> submission to NetMundial
>>>>
>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the 
>>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public 
>>>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy 
>>>> and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect 
>>>> human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that 
>>>> relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under 
>>>> international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the 
>>>> appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and 
>>>> technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should 
>>>> continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of 
>>>> empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The 
>>>> private sector and particularly the technical community 
>>>> significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution 
>>>> and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In 
>>>> order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, 
>>>> innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas 
>>>> and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all 
>>>> stakeholders involved need to work together."
>>>>
>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>>>>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, 
>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/961bfb8f/attachment.htm>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Mar  6 06:31:22 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:31:22 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Alternatives?
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
 <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Andrew:

Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).  

 
Parminder
You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do, policy making. 

 
Wolfgang:
 
The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation). 
 
With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more. 
 
The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture. 
 
Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.  
 
The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.). 
 
But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will keep their own positions. 
 
However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to reduce such violations.
 
If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages. 
 
 
 

From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca  Thu Mar  6 07:35:11 2014
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:35:11 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>

I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government for 30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government delegation that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why civil society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point, they are needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute in protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
Stephanie Perrin 
On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> 
> Andrew:
> 
> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).  
> 
> 
> Parminder
> You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do, policy making. 
> 
> 
> Wolfgang:
> 
> The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation). 
> 
> With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more. 
> 
> The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture. 
> 
> Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.  
> 
> The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.). 
> 
> But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will keep their own positions. 
> 
> However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to reduce such violations.
> 
> If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Thu Mar  6 08:46:37 2014
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:46:37 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
 <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CF3E2B50.1581F%andrew@gp-digital.org>

I think Wolfgang expresses my view of the issues very well and I don¹t
think I can add to it.  There¹s clearly two views emerging in civil
society on IG - a one based on an  established hierarchical system among
states and the other - as said below - an innovative bottom, transparent,
accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where
governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a
veto rights

Let¹s now see whose case is more persuasive


On 06/03/2014 11:31, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> 
>Andrew:
>
>Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should
>in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the
>sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>
> 
>Parminder
>You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
>the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is
>so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP,
>or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got...
>We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my
>organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to
>help, but not do, policy making.
>
> 
>Wolfgang:
> 
>The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
>governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach
>consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
>there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
>existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing
>you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to
>disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).
> 
>With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
>system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.
>You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
>restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will
>be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new
>technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual
>rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in
>particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and
>something more. 
> 
>The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the
>innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy
>development process where governments are just one (vey important)
>stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
>coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with
>other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an
>issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more
>non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular
>developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental)
>monopolies, domination and capture.
> 
>Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus
>is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if
>new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic)
>oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move
>(or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
>represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
> 
>The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
>rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
>principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations
>in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights
>Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a
>multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a
>direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the
>launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
>observatories etc.).
> 
>But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
>Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral
>or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment.
>And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet
>Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a
>bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably
>look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and
>the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach.
>And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular
>the governments) will keep their own positions.
> 
>However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
>determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
>escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day
>all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set
>of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the
>UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders.
>This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not
>save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the
>right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not
>stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which
>helped to reduce such violations.
> 
>If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving
>backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
> 
> 
> 


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Mar  6 08:52:05 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:52:05 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>

+ 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,

jeanette

Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
> I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government for 30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government delegation that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why civil society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point, they are needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute in protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
> Stephanie Perrin
> On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>>
>> Andrew:
>>
>> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>>
>>
>> Parminder
>> You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do, policy making.
>>
>>
>> Wolfgang:
>>
>> The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).
>>
>> With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.
>>
>> The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture.
>>
>> Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
>>
>> The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.).
>>
>> But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will keep their own positions.
>>
>> However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to reduce such violations.
>>
>> If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 09:00:55 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:00:55 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] RE: Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <CF3E2B50.1581F%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CF3E2B50.1581F%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0d0b01cf3944$7f406640$7dc132c0$@gmail.com>

Andrew, 

 

I fail to see how Wolfgang's discussion of MSism as an ideal type (using the
narrowly technical issues addressed by the IETF as his example) addresses
any of the reality based questions that I posed.

 

Perhaps you (or Wolfgang or others) could either indicate how Wolfgang's
comments do address my questions or respond to them yourself.

 

As a reminder I'm copying them in below...

 

Reading your contribution I’m left with more questions than answers I’m
afraid..

1.	What are the details for the formation/determination of
“stakeholders”—do they pursue their interests/stakes or do they pursue the
public good

a.	How are divergent interests/conflicts within stakeholder groups
handled
b.	Is this transparent
c.	What are the accountability mechanisms here
d.	Who/how is “legitimacy” accorded/denied—by what authority
e.	Who gives legitimacy to the legitimizers

2.	Decision making processes—i.e. how are divergent interests/conflicts
between stakeholders handled 

a.	who gets to deny consensus and how can we be at all certain that the
result is in the public interest—
b.	can/should those with specific private interests be in a position to
deny consensus/force consensus on their terms (Parminder’s point about the
private sector being equal with governments in making decisions) 
c.	Is there an artificial drive to a forced consensus
d.	Can private interests drive decisions and what is to prevent this
e.	Is there such a thing as “conflict of interest”—who is responsible
for this—how is it policed, sanctions

3.	How to ensure true diversity of opinion including among those who
challenge the way in which the issues are framed—diversity of “identity” is
relatively easy, normative diversity is rather more difficult to achieve and
handle 
4.	How is the very real danger of capture guarded against
5.	What would be the process of deepening participation/consultation

 

Without dealing with the above and associated reality based questions you
and the other MSist advocates are expecting folks to buy a pig in a poke

alright perhaps for some – the powerful and the networked but dangerous
indeed for everyone else.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:47 AM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder;
michael gurstein; Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: Alternatives?

 

I think Wolfgang expresses my view of the issues very well and I don¹t think
I can add to it.  There¹s clearly two views emerging in civil society on IG
- a one based on an  established hierarchical system among states and the
other - as said below - an innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open
multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one
(vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto rights

 

Let¹s now see whose case is more persuasive

 

 

On 06/03/2014 11:31, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""

< <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

 

> 

>Andrew:

> 

>Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments 

>should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they 

>are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand
you).

> 

> 

>Parminder

>You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies 

>the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This 

>is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, 

>IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we
got...

>We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my 

>organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to 

>help, but not do, policy making.

> 

> 

>Wolfgang:

> 

>The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ 

>governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to 

>reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated 

>that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an 

>already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The 

>only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an 

>agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).

> 

>With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial 

>system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.

>You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most 

>restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This 

>will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with 

>no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for 

>individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic 

>development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job 

>opportunies and something more.

> 

>The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - 

>the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder 

>policy development process where governments are just one (vey 

>important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to 

>communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among 

>themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their 

>legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you 

>need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - 

>in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and 

>non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture.

> 

>Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough 

>consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and 

>amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and 

>economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it 

>helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority 

>which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

> 

>The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder 

>rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general 

>principles (which would allow also some governments to make 

>reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the 

>Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and 

>to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of 

>concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include 

>also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like 

>clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.).

> 

>But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to 

>Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via 

>bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder
environment.

>And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet 

>Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a 

>bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would 

>probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member 

>states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy
approach.

>And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular 

>the governments) will keep their own positions.

> 

>However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural

>determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an 

>escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the 

>day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by 

>those set of principles, which will have the support not only by 

>governments of the UN member states but also by all the other
non-governmental stakeholders.

>This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not 

>save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the 

>right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not 

>stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which 

>helped to reduce such violations.

> 

>If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are 

>moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.

> 

> 

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/cac29e54/attachment.htm>

From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Mon Mar  3 10:44:07 2014
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:44:07 -0500
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] RSVP - discussion of governance
 mechanisms (was Re: substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG)
In-Reply-To: <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net>
References: <00ea01cf2409$3208d920$961a8b60$@gmail.com><20140207150553.775173a6@quill><CA+4KnA-8w1_sZsDQTcRvAN1JtUZCagEH+Zmvd=N335Ma787Oww@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBXEfJcji5szHOFQ4yidkM0Ay3mS4V73yC7MDx076UxCg@mail.gmail.com> <156454A2925A4E8EB1F5913597EC11E0@Toshiba> <52F55F3B.4010408@acm.org> <02c701cf2498$acd5dec0$06819c40$@gmail.com> <52F71A0E.2090406@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1146D0C6-9ABB-4DB5-8D4E-E0DE8664ED04@post.harvard.edu>

Though I am seriously late to find - thank goodness for it.

Terrifying, for me anyway.  Should be read widely.  So much thanks to Parminder for sending.

David


On Feb 9, 2014, at 1:02 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> please read this carefully. This is what multistakeholderism is all about
> 
> http://www.tni.org/article/not-everybodys-business
> 
> The WEF at Davos is its prototype, and it is certainly post-democratic..
> 
> Hope civil society  groups (the IG kind) wake up before it is too late, and history questions its role in subverting democracy.
> 
> parminder


From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Thu Mar  6 09:12:31 2014
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:12:31 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <0d0b01cf3944$7f406640$7dc132c0$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
 <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
 <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
 <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
 <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
 <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
 <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
 <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
 <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <CF3E2B50.1581F%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <0d0b01cf3944$7f406640$7dc132c0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF3E3116.1584C%andrew@gp-digital.org>

And I fail to see how a hierarchical state based system of decision making – which is the alternative being proposed – answers your questions or as I prefer to think of it - offers me any sees of how my interests as a user will be taken care off.  That to me is the important question

The kind of governments wanting to assert “state sovereignty” over the internet, to use Russia’s phrase, have no interest in my concerns whereas most civil society groups that I have see active in this space do.  So I’d like to see them at the table

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 14:00
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org<mailto:andrew at gp-digital.org>>, "'\"Kleinwächter", "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au<mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: RE: Alternatives?


Andrew,



I fail to see how Wolfgang's discussion of MSism as an ideal type (using the narrowly technical issues addressed by the IETF as his example) addresses any of the reality based questions that I posed.



Perhaps you (or Wolfgang or others) could either indicate how Wolfgang's comments do address my questions or respond to them yourself.



As a reminder I'm copying them in below...


Reading your contribution I’m left with more questions than answers I’m afraid..

 1.  What are the details for the formation/determination of “stakeholders”—do they pursue their interests/stakes or do they pursue the public good
    *   How are divergent interests/conflicts within stakeholder groups handled
    *   Is this transparent
    *   What are the accountability mechanisms here
    *   Who/how is “legitimacy” accorded/denied—by what authority
    *   Who gives legitimacy to the legitimizers
 2.  Decision making processes—i.e. how are divergent interests/conflicts between stakeholders handled
    *   who gets to deny consensus and how can we be at all certain that the result is in the public interest—
    *   can/should those with specific private interests be in a position to deny consensus/force consensus on their terms (Parminder’s point about the private sector being equal with governments in making decisions)
    *   Is there an artificial drive to a forced consensus
    *   Can private interests drive decisions and what is to prevent this
    *   Is there such a thing as “conflict of interest”—who is responsible for this—how is it policed, sanctions
 3.  How to ensure true diversity of opinion including among those who challenge the way in which the issues are framed—diversity of “identity” is relatively easy, normative diversity is rather more difficult to achieve and handle
 4.  How is the very real danger of capture guarded against
 5.  What would be the process of deepening participation/consultation

Without dealing with the above and associated reality based questions you and the other MSist advocates are expecting folks to buy a pig in a poke… alright perhaps for some – the powerful and the networked but dangerous indeed for everyone else.

M



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:47 AM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; parminder; michael gurstein; Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: Alternatives?



I think Wolfgang expresses my view of the issues very well and I don¹t think I can add to it.  There¹s clearly two views emerging in civil society on IG - a one based on an  established hierarchical system among states and the other - as said below - an innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto rights



Let¹s now see whose case is more persuasive





On 06/03/2014 11:31, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""

<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> wrote:



>

>Andrew:

>

>Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments

>should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they

>are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).

>

>

>Parminder

>You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies

>the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This

>is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade,

>IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got...

>We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my

>organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to

>help, but not do, policy making.

>

>

>Wolfgang:

>

>The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+

>governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to

>reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated

>that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an

>already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The

>only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an

>agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).

>

>With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial

>system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.

>You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most

>restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This

>will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with

>no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for

>individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic

>development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job

>opportunies and something more.

>

>The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years -

>the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder

>policy development process where governments are just one (vey

>important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to

>communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among

>themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their

>legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you

>need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions -

>in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and

>non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture.

>

>Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough

>consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and

>amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and

>economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it

>helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority

>which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

>

>The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder

>rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general

>principles (which would allow also some governments to make

>reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the

>Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and

>to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of

>concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include

>also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like

>clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.).

>

>But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to

>Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via

>bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment.

>And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet

>Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a

>bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would

>probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member

>states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach.

>And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular

>the governments) will keep their own positions.

>

>However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural

>determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an

>escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the

>day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by

>those set of principles, which will have the support not only by

>governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders.

>This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not

>save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the

>right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not

>stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which

>helped to reduce such violations.

>

>If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are

>moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.

>

>

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/ef731778/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 09:15:56 2014
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:15:56 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
	<531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
	<2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
	<53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
	<18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
	<09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
	<CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
	<CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
	<CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
	<CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
	<CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1

This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same goals,
there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving those
goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both philosophically
and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described compelling
pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed system.
I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made
about the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and
creating new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for
civil society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong
corporate sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for
global action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe
require policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the
Internet governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about
pressing our case in the most effective manner available to us at this
point in time.  Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more
direct (and democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I
view the incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly
NOT detrimental to our long-term objectives.


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> + 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
>
>> I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government
>> for 30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government
>> delegation that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine
>> why civil society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this
>> point, they are needed at this inflection point in Internet history to
>> stand resolute in protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
>> Stephanie Perrin
>> On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Andrew:
>>>
>>> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should
>>> in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the
>>> sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>>>
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>> You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
>>> the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so
>>> for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
>>> other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We
>>> should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation
>>> has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do,
>>> policy making.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wolfgang:
>>>
>>> The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
>>> governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach
>>> consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
>>> there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
>>> existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you
>>> will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to
>>> disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).
>>>
>>> With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
>>> system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.
>>> You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
>>> restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be
>>> a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new
>>> technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual
>>> rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in
>>> particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something
>>> more.
>>>
>>> The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years -
>>> the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder
>>> policy development process where governments are just one (vey important)
>>> stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
>>> coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with
>>> other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue
>>> by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental
>>> stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
>>> countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
>>> domination and capture.
>>>
>>> Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough
>>> consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and
>>> amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and
>>> economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to
>>> move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
>>> represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
>>>
>>> The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
>>> rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
>>> principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in
>>> line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights
>>> Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a
>>> multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a
>>> direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the
>>> launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
>>> observatories etc.).
>>>
>>> But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
>>> Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or
>>> regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the
>>> outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
>>> Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
>>> Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather
>>> different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU
>>> Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also
>>> Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the
>>> governments) will keep their own positions.
>>>
>>> However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
>>> determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
>>> escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day
>>> all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
>>> principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN
>>> member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This
>>> is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the
>>> world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
>>> direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
>>> violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped
>>> to reduce such violations.
>>>
>>> If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving
>>> backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/ea421ec5/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Mar  6 09:17:35 2014
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:17:35 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5318837F.4020507@cdt.org>

Thanks Wolfgang - very well articulated and reflective of the realities 
we face.


Wolfgang:

The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).

With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.

The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture.

Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.).

But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will keep their own positions.

However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to reduce such violations.

If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.




____________________________________________________________
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


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



From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 09:26:58 2014
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 06:26:58 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>
	<531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>
	<2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>
	<53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>
	<18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>
	<09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>
	<CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>
	<CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>
	<CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>
	<CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>
	<CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu>
	<CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdsSs+2EBfbV09KL2LBWM=2a74bXO9zoUQ7hgq2y-f-WA@mail.gmail.com>

+ 1 on Gene
But I also see that what is happening here is something "normal" taking
into consideration the state we are within the debates of "openness" and
"participation"
even in business and law theories this debate has been emerging - if you
look into theories of open innovation (Cherbrough), user driven innovation
(Von Hippel) or crowdsource innovation  (Lakhani > free software and
Benkler > free culture and peer innovation), and design for generative
results (Zittrain).
It was actually to see ICANN bringing a bunch of these names for their
advisory panel on their strategic planning. That actually made me optimist
on devising actual process of open and broad participation.
I do believe, however, that as civil society our role is to aim for
something bold and innovative, that is as inclusive as possible, but since
I am a very practical person, I look for models that have been showing some
success. Those scholars have mapped tons...and maybe some of us could look
and abstract proposals from those to set up multistakeholderism processes.
I also agree we should always aim at open standards - which for me have a
intrinsically interoperability characteristic.
Let's be bold folks, but with practical propositions  :-)
C



On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>wrote:

> +1
>
> This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
> articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same goals,
> there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving those
> goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both philosophically
> and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described compelling
> pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed system.
> I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made
> about the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and
> creating new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for
> civil society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong
> corporate sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for
> global action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe
> require policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the
> Internet governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about
> pressing our case in the most effective manner available to us at this
> point in time.  Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more
> direct (and democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I
> view the incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly
> NOT detrimental to our long-term objectives.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>> + 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
>>
>>> I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government
>>> for 30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government
>>> delegation that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine
>>> why civil society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this
>>> point, they are needed at this inflection point in Internet history to
>>> stand resolute in protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>> On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andrew:
>>>>
>>>> Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments
>>>> should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are
>>>> the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>> You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
>>>> the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so
>>>> for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
>>>> other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We
>>>> should continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation
>>>> has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do,
>>>> policy making.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang:
>>>>
>>>> The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
>>>> governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach
>>>> consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
>>>> there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
>>>> existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you
>>>> will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to
>>>> disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).
>>>>
>>>> With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
>>>> system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.
>>>> You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
>>>> restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This will be
>>>> a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new
>>>> technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual
>>>> rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in
>>>> particular in developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something
>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years -
>>>> the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder
>>>> policy development process where governments are just one (vey important)
>>>> stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
>>>> coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with
>>>> other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue
>>>> by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental
>>>> stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
>>>> countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
>>>> domination and capture.
>>>>
>>>> Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough
>>>> consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and
>>>> amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and
>>>> economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to
>>>> move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
>>>> represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
>>>>
>>>> The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
>>>> rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
>>>> principles (which would allow also some governments to make reservations in
>>>> line with the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights
>>>> Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a
>>>> multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of concern and gives a
>>>> direction how to approach them (this could include also timelines and the
>>>> launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
>>>> observatories etc.).
>>>>
>>>> But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
>>>> Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or
>>>> regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the
>>>> outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
>>>> Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
>>>> Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather
>>>> different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU
>>>> Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also
>>>> Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the
>>>> governments) will keep their own positions.
>>>>
>>>> However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
>>>> determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
>>>> escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day
>>>> all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
>>>> principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN
>>>> member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This
>>>> is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the
>>>> world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
>>>> direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
>>>> violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped
>>>> to reduce such violations.
>>>>
>>>> If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are
>>>> moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/7eba4d80/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 10:13:56 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:13:56 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] RE: Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <CF3E3116.1584C%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CF3E2B50.1581F%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0d0b01cf3944$7f406640$7dc132c0$@gmail.com> <CF3E3116.1584C%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <0d5e01cf394e$b2733240$175996c0$@gmail.com>

For those out there who might not be catching Andrew’s drift behind the buzz word barrage and portensious evoking of the Cold War (us guys with white hats and those guys with black hats) let me de-construct his various communications…

 

AP: And I fail to see how a hierarchical state based system of decision making – which is the alternative being proposed – answers your questions or as I prefer to think of it - offers me any sees of how my interests as a user will be taken care off.  That to me is the important question

 

MG: “a hierarchical state based system of decision making” popularly known to most of the world as “democracy”

 

MG: “my interests as a user will be taken care off” otherwise intelligible as “my interests as a privileged white Developed Country male living under the benign and enabling gaze of the GCHQ”

 

 

AP: The kind of governments wanting to assert “state sovereignty” over the internet, to use Russia’s phrase, have no interest in my concerns whereas most civil society groups that I have see active in this space do.  So I’d like to see them at the table

 

MG: “governments wanting to assert “state sovereignty” over the internet” i.e. everybody who doesn’t buy into my cuckoo cloud land ideal state of totally benign, selfless and public spirited “multi-stakeholders”—such as Internet tax dodgers Amazon and  Google, technical community stakeholders like the NSA,  various Google greenwashing NGO’s such as…,etc.etc.

 

 

AP: There¹s clearly two views emerging in civil society on IG - a one based on an  established hierarchical system among states and the other - as said below - an innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto rights

 

MG: “established hierarchical system among states” namely the UN and associated multilateral bodies where the writ of King Silicon Valley and the Internet Freedom crusaders has only partial sway i.e. the place where even the little people have a chance to be heard 

 

MG: “innovative” – innovation for who and whose benefit  http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/silicon-valleys-to-community-informatics-neighbourhoods/

 

MG: “bottom (up)” – the point of my questions – I don’t see any bottom up processes—a lot of networking of the already networked http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/847.htm and http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/if-multistakeholderism-had-prevailed-in-the-late-19thearly-20th-century-would-women-have-the-vote-would-we-still-have-slavery/

 

MG: “transparent” and ” accountable” hmmm http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-my-adventures-in-stakeholderland/

 

MG: “open” – open for who and in whose benefit  http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/%E2%80%9Copen%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Cnecessary%E2%80%9D-but-not-%E2%80%9Csufficient%E2%80%9D/

 

And in case anyone was wondering http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/

 

M

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:13 AM
To: michael gurstein; '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'parminder'; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: Alternatives?

 

And I fail to see how a hierarchical state based system of decision making – which is the alternative being proposed – answers your questions or as I prefer to think of it - offers me any sees of how my interests as a user will be taken care off.  That to me is the important question

 

The kind of governments wanting to assert “state sovereignty” over the internet, to use Russia’s phrase, have no interest in my concerns whereas most civil society groups that I have see active in this space do.  So I’d like to see them at the table

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 14:00
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "'\"Kleinwächter", "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net <mailto:bestbits at lists.%20net> >" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: Alternatives?

 

Andrew, 

 

I fail to see how Wolfgang's discussion of MSism as an ideal type (using the narrowly technical issues addressed by the IETF as his example) addresses any of the reality based questions that I posed.

 

Perhaps you (or Wolfgang or others) could either indicate how Wolfgang's comments do address my questions or respond to them yourself.

 

As a reminder I'm copying them in below...

 

Reading your contribution I’m left with more questions than answers I’m afraid..

1.	What are the details for the formation/determination of “stakeholders”—do they pursue their interests/stakes or do they pursue the public good

a.	How are divergent interests/conflicts within stakeholder groups handled
b.	Is this transparent
c.	What are the accountability mechanisms here
d.	Who/how is “legitimacy” accorded/denied—by what authority
e.	Who gives legitimacy to the legitimizers

2.	Decision making processes—i.e. how are divergent interests/conflicts between stakeholders handled 

a.	who gets to deny consensus and how can we be at all certain that the result is in the public interest—
b.	can/should those with specific private interests be in a position to deny consensus/force consensus on their terms (Parminder’s point about the private sector being equal with governments in making decisions) 
c.	Is there an artificial drive to a forced consensus
d.	Can private interests drive decisions and what is to prevent this
e.	Is there such a thing as “conflict of interest”—who is responsible for this—how is it policed, sanctions

3.	How to ensure true diversity of opinion including among those who challenge the way in which the issues are framed—diversity of “identity” is relatively easy, normative diversity is rather more difficult to achieve and handle 
4.	How is the very real danger of capture guarded against
5.	What would be the process of deepening participation/consultation

 

Without dealing with the above and associated reality based questions you and the other MSist advocates are expecting folks to buy a pig in a poke… alright perhaps for some – the powerful and the networked but dangerous indeed for everyone else.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:47 AM
To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; michael gurstein; Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: Alternatives?

 

I think Wolfgang expresses my view of the issues very well and I don¹t think I can add to it.  There¹s clearly two views emerging in civil society on IG - a one based on an  established hierarchical system among states and the other - as said below - an innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy development process where governments are just one (vey important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto rights

 

Let¹s now see whose case is more persuasive

 

 

On 06/03/2014 11:31, ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""

< <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

 

> 

>Andrew:

> 

>Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments 

>should in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they 

>are the sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).

> 

> 

>Parminder

>You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies 

>the final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This 

>is so for policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, 

>IP, or any other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got...

>We should continually improve it, as various submissions from my 

>organisation has sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to 

>help, but not do, policy making.

> 

> 

>Wolfgang:

> 

>The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+ 

>governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to 

>reach consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated 

>that there is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an 

>already existing (more technical) treaty with some amendements. The 

>only thing you will get out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an 

>agreement to disagree" (as enhanced cooperation).

> 

>With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial 

>system with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing.

>You will end up in endless political and ideological battles The most 

>restrictive government will determine where the "red line is". This 

>will be a blockade for the next 20 years of Internet development with 

>no new technical and economic innovations, growing restrictions for 

>individual rights and freedoms, slowing down social and economic 

>development - in particular in developing countries - reducing job 

>opportunies and something more.

> 

>The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - 

>the innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder 

>policy development process where governments are just one (vey 

>important) stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to 

>communicate, coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among 

>themsleves and with other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their 

>legitimacy) on an issue by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you 

>need more non-governmental stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - 

>in particular developing countries - to balance (governmental and 

>non-governmental) monopolies, domination and capture.

> 

>Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough 

>consensus is based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and 

>amended if new developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and 

>economic) oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it 

>helps to move (or stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority 

>which is represented by the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

> 

>The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder 

>rough consensus around very high level, legally non binding general 

>principles (which would allow also some governments to make 

>reservations in line with the mechanisms which has been build into the 

>Human Rights Declarations with regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and 

>to agree on a multistakeholder road map which singles out issues of 

>concern and gives a direction how to approach them (this could include 

>also timelines and the launch of multistakeholder mechanisms like 

>clearing houses, taks forces, observatories etc.).

> 

>But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to 

>Security to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via 

>bi-lateral or regional arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment.

>And the outcome of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet 

>Governance Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a 

>bilateral Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would 

>probably look rather different from the EU Directive (with 28 member 

>states) and the EU Directive is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach.

>And also Brazil, South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular 

>the governments) will keep their own positions.

> 

>However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural

>determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an 

>escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the 

>day all the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by 

>those set of principles, which will have the support not only by 

>governments of the UN member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders.

>This is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not 

>save the world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the 

>right direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not 

>stop violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which 

>helped to reduce such violations.

> 

>If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are 

>moving backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.

> 

> 

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/f7a306d5/attachment.htm>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Thu Mar  6 11:23:33 2014
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 00:23:33 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Personal submission to NETmundial 2014
Message-ID: <1757E0A6-D02E-4A6A-9F2D-4A755715BD23@Malcolm.id.au>

Below is my personal submission to NETmundial 2014 on "Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem", which builds on the Best Bits joint submission, but takes a different direction on some points.  The bottom line is that I advocate for a rather stronger role for the IGF than we ended up doing in the joint submission (for which there was disagreement over whether the CSTD or IGF was the better choice):

http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-2014-submission-on-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140307/043b4244/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140307/043b4244/attachment.sig>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 11:47:04 2014
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 08:47:04 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au>	<531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net>	<2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au>	<53170F61.60305@itforchange.net>	<18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au>	<09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com>	<CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com>	<CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com>	<CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com>	<CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net>	<CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<53183680.4000809@itforchange.net>	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca>	<53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu> <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com>

I’m still waiting for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed system
(democracy) but one where there is at least a track record, very
considerable theoretical development, an enormous ecology concerning
Transparency and Accountability with a pig in a poke (multistakeholderism)
which has no (applicable) track record, absolutely no theoretical
development or underpinnings, and whose only ecology is highly questionable
since it suffers from, shall we say, significant transparency and
accountability “deficits”. 

 

The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with
existing processes by various highly questionable actors—tax dodging private
sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted) tech
community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not only this
but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over (“consensus
based”) public policy outputs to those self-same private sector giants etc.
etc. 

 

If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending time
thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic
processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic
participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment
would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other
reasons for discarding democracy which we aren’t being made aware of. (That
the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes MSism 12
times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various of those
party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene Kimmelman
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:16 AM
To: Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?

 

+1

 

This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same goals,
there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving those
goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both philosophically
and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described compelling
pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed system.
I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made about
the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and creating
new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for civil
society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong corporate
sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for global
action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe require
policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the Internet
governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about pressing
our case in the most effective manner available to us at this point in time.
Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more direct (and
democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I view the
incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly NOT
detrimental to our long-term objectives.

 

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

+ 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,

jeanette

Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:

I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government for
30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government delegation
that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why civil
society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point, they are
needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute in
protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:


Andrew:

Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments should in
the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the sole
source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).


Parminder
You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies the
final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so for
policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We should
continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has
sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do, policy
making.


Wolfgang:

The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to reach
consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that there
is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already existing
(more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will get
out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree" (as
enhanced cooperation).

With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial system
with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You will
end up in endless political and ideological battles The most restrictive
government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a blockade
for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and
economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and
freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular in
developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.

The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years - the
innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder policy
development process where governments are just one (vey important)
stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and with
other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an issue
by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more non-governmental
stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
domination and capture.

Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough consensus is
based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new
developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic)
oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move (or
stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is represented by
the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.

The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder rough
consensus around very high level, legally non binding general principles
(which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line with
the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations with
regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder road
map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to
approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of
multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces, observatories
etc.).

But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to Security
to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or regional
arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the outcome
of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look rather
different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU Directive
is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also Brazil,
South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments) will
keep their own positions.

However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the day all
the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the UN
member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders. This
is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save the
world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which helped to
reduce such violations.

If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are moving
backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.




____________________________________________________________
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140306/7fc571a7/attachment.htm>

From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Mar  6 12:01:34 2014
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 18:01:34 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
In-Reply-To: <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com>
References: <FF17425A-CEDC-4439-9521-8BD41F7D4E59@Malcolm.id.au> <531708D5.7090200@itforchange.net> <2E3D5FD7-A108-4A16-977A-2650F624CA82@Malcolm.id.au> <53170F61.60305@itforchange.net> <18E85667-1547-4ABA-9CF9-B24D69C9DC19@Malcolm.id.au> <09f301cf38ce$b2611900$17234b00$@gmail.com> <CF3D88EF.15731%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0a9f01cf38e7$db80dcd0$92829670$@gmail.com> <CF3D954B.1574A%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0aec01cf38f0$e5c76430$b1562c90$@gmail.com> <CF3DABBA.1576D%andrew@gp-digital.org> <0b5001cf38f9$6b55a1e0$4200e5a0$@gmail.com> <CF3DBB33.15795%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53180E22.1080909@itforchange.net> <CF3DC13A.157A4%andrew@gp-digital.org> <53183680.4000809@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164204D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <D0AB6D0C-BDAA-4535-A727-A88D87ED722F@mail.utoronto.ca> <53187D85.7030003@wzb.eu> <CA+4KnA-V6wHakQPr3AR845qrKz22FNgB+gJ=tquUNph14fCCcQ@mail.gmail.com> <0df201cf395b$b4d1a8c0$1e74fa40$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <86ba8e54-c4c7-4b7d-9b95-e8e5c6c110e3@email.android.com>

How about democracy is supposed to be a national concept while we are dealing with transnational issues that involve  public but also lots of private resources? Thus, this is not about replacing democracy but enhancing some of its principles to the transnational sphere. Actually an old idea that now has found another concrete case of application. 
Jeanette 

On 6 March 2014 17:47:04 CET, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>I’m still waiting for a rationale for replacing an admittedly flawed
>system
>(democracy) but one where there is at least a track record, very
>considerable theoretical development, an enormous ecology concerning
>Transparency and Accountability with a pig in a poke
>(multistakeholderism)
>which has no (applicable) track record, absolutely no theoretical
>development or underpinnings, and whose only ecology is highly
>questionable
>since it suffers from, shall we say, significant transparency and
>accountability “deficits”. 
>
> 
>
>The only justification that seems to be presented is impatience with
>existing processes by various highly questionable actors—tax dodging
>private
>sector giants, an (as yet we are not sure how deeply subverted) tech
>community and a bunch of corporate sponsored CS organizations. Not only
>this
>but the proposed system is such as to give an explicit veto over
>(“consensus
>based”) public policy outputs to those self-same private sector giants
>etc.
>etc. 
>
> 
>
>If folks are serious about finding useful ways forward then spending
>time
>thinking about how to achieve useful reforms of existing democratic
>processes/developing MS processes that enhance and deepen democratic
>participation in the very complex and rapidly changing tech environment
>would seem to me to be the way to go, unless of course there are other
>reasons for discarding democracy which we aren’t being made aware of.
>(That
>the US presentation re: Internet Governance to NetMundial evokes MSism
>12
>times and fails to mention democracy even once should give various of
>those
>party to this discussion some cause for reflection.)
>
> 
>
>M
>
> 
>
>From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Gene
>Kimmelman
>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 6:16 AM
>To: Jeanette Hofmann
>Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Alternatives?
>
> 
>
>+1
>
> 
>
>This back and forth has identified something very important for us to
>articulate clearly among ourselves:  Even where  we share the same
>goals,
>there will often be different approaches and strategies for achieving
>those
>goals. And in some instances we may have to part ways both
>philosophically
>and tactically.  I believe Andrew and Wolfgang have described
>compelling
>pragmatic reasons to seek incremental improvements in a very flawed
>system.
>I am comfortable (despite whatever legitimate arguments have been made
>about
>the weaknesses in MSism) seeking to refine existing processes and
>creating
>new processes if necessary that BOTH expand the opportunities for civil
>society engagement with policymakers and the extremely strong corporate
>sector, AND facilitate civil society's opportunity to press for global
>action on the most important substantive policy issues we believe
>require
>policy intervention.  That is why I am comfortable signing the Internet
>governance principles and Roadmap documents. To  me, this is about
>pressing
>our case in the most effective manner available to us at this point in
>time.
>Like many others, I hope for a day in which we have more direct (and
>democratic) paths to promote our cause, but in the meantime I view the
>incremental opportunities as worthy of engagement, and certainly NOT
>detrimental to our long-term objectives.
>
> 
>
>On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>wrote:
>
>+ 1 to Stephanie and Wolfgang,
>
>jeanette
>
>Am 06.03.14 13:35, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
>
>I strongly support this statement.  As someone who worked in government
>for
>30 years in this field, I must say that it is a rare government
>delegation
>that volunteers to engage with civil society.  I cannot imagine why
>civil
>society wants to abdicate the little power they have at this point,
>they are
>needed at this inflection point in Internet history to stand resolute
>in
>protecting human rights, privacy, and development.
>Stephanie Perrin
>On 2014-03-06, at 6:31 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>
>
>Andrew:
>
>Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments
>should in
>the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are the
>sole
>source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
>
>
>Parminder
>You do understand correctly. I believe that for global public policies
>the
>final public policy decision has to be taken by governments. This is so
>for
>policies in all area, whether climate change, health, trade, IP, or any
>other. That is an imperfect system, but that is the best we got... We
>should
>continually improve it, as various submissions from my organisation has
>sought, and well, IGF is a great reform measure, to help, but not do,
>policy
>making.
>
>
>Wolfgang:
>
>The reality is - and will remain for a long future - that the 190+
>governments of the UN member states will be unable to agree and to
>reach
>consensus. WCIT was in so far a watershed because it demonstrated that
>there
>is no political will to agree on an the continuation of an already
>existing
>(more technical) treaty with some amendements. The only thing you will
>get
>out - if you follow Parminders advice - is "an agreement to disagree"
>(as
>enhanced cooperation).
>
>With other words: If you continue with this established hierarchcial
>system
>with intergovernmental treaties at the top, you will get nothing. You
>will
>end up in endless political and ideological battles The most
>restrictive
>government will determine where the "red line is". This will be a
>blockade
>for the next 20 years of Internet development with no new technical and
>economic innovations, growing restrictions for individual rights and
>freedoms, slowing down social and economic development - in particular
>in
>developing countries - reducing job opportunies and something more.
>
>The only way to bypass this is - as it has proved the last 20 years -
>the
>innovative bottom, transparent, accountable, open multistakeholder
>policy
>development process where governments are just one (vey important)
>stakeholder, but do not have a veto right and have to communicate,
>coordinate and collaborate on an equal footing among themsleves and
>with
>other stakeholders (which have to demonstrate their legitimacy) on an
>issue
>by issue basis towards rough consensus. And you need more
>non-governmental
>stakeholders from underprivilegd regions - in particular developing
>countries - to balance (governmental and non-governmental) monopolies,
>domination and capture.
>
>Study the IETF what rough consensus means. As long as the rough
>consensus is
>based on an open standard, it can be always enhanced and amended if new
>developments, (politcal) constellations and (social and economic)
>oppotunties arrive. So it is never the last word. But it helps to move
>(or
>stumble) forward to the benefit of the vast majority which is
>represented by
>the (multistakeholder) rough consensus.
>
>The big chance of NetMundial is that there could be a multistakeholder
>rough
>consensus around very high level, legally non binding general
>principles
>(which would allow also some governments to make reservations in line
>with
>the mechanisms which has been build into the Human Rights Declarations
>with
>regad to Article 19 and Article 29) and to agree on a multistakeholder
>road
>map which singles out issues of concern and gives a direction how to
>approach them (this could include also timelines and the launch of
>multistakeholder mechanisms like clearing houses, taks forces,
>observatories
>etc.).
>
>But the very concrete public policy arrangements - from Privacy to
>Security
>to Intellectual Property - will be made probably via bi-lateral or
>regional
>arrangements negotiated in a multistakeholder environment. And the
>outcome
>of this "Internet Governance Bilateralism" or "Internet Governance
>Regionalism" will produce another set of conflicts because a bilateral
>Chinese - Russian agreement on Internet Privacy would probably look
>rather
>different from the EU Directive (with 28 member states) and the EU
>Directive
>is also rather differerent from the US privacy approach. And also
>Brazil,
>South Africa, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia (in particular the governments)
>will
>keep their own positions.
>
>However, as long as you put this (very often historical and cultural
>determined) conflicts into a broader set of principles you avoid an
>escalation among the conflicting positions because at the end of the
>day all
>the different groups feel polically (and morally) bound by those set of
>principles, which will have the support not only by governments of the
>UN
>member states but also by all the other non-governmental stakeholders.
>This
>is a unique chance. It will not settle all problems and will not save
>the
>world. But it is a step forward at the right moment and in the right
>direction. The adoption of the Human Rights Declaration did not stop
>violations of human rights. But it offered a reference point which
>helped to
>reduce such violations.
>
>If we neglect or ignore this, the alternative will be that we are
>moving
>backwards into the 19th Century or even worse, into the Middle Ages.
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
>
> 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Thu Mar  6 12:32:22 2014
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net