From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 1 00:57:28 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 13:57:28 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks Avri, Could you give a link to the document you refer to. Or send a copy of the doc to the list. Thanks, Adam On May 1, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Well day one came and went. > > We reviewed some of the recommendation that had not yet been reviewed, > and once again got hung up on the fundamental differences: > > - Enhanced cooperation is only about governments > - Enhanced cooperation is about all stakeholders. > > - Para 32 says all there is to say about Respective Roles and > Responsibilities > - Para 32 needs to be revisited to match reality. > > - WGEC needs to deliver a consensus report > - WGEC can come out with a report that reports the varying models > > - We trust the chair and he can write a chapeau discussing the > differences of viewpoint. > - we like the chair, but he is just human, we need to write up our own > viewpoints. > > - we should go back to our hotels and write up a brief (several line) > opinion of Enhanced Cooperation and Multistakeholderism > - we don't need to do this but should continue working on trying to find > the item(s) we can reach consensus on. > > (I expect most groups have been doing the homework just in case there is > a quiz) > > > The Sessions are broadcast live. I do not know if there are archived > recording, but there probably are - I will check. The CSTD secretariat > has come a long way in the short year this WG has been working. From a > first meeting where streaming was not possible, to a meeting 11 months > later, with streaming and remote participation for absent WG members - > not that any did participate as far as I know. > > Process wise, Observers are allowed to comment but only in a 15 minute > slot just before breaks. > > While we had brief reports on NETmundial, the IGF, ITU activities etc, > these were not discussed as there were those who argued that these were > not immediately relevant to the work of the WGEC which has its own > mandate. The chair concurred. > > Tomorrow is another day. > > avri > > (a cs nominated member of the wgec) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From jcurran at istaff.org Thu May 1 07:46:29 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 04:46:29 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform that we've just very successfully created. /John Disclaimer: My views alone. From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat May 3 22:06:22 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 22:06:22 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 3 In-Reply-To: References: <5364D237.1020002@acm.org> Message-ID: <98E73276-8349-4F7E-ADB8-28EE016A165E@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks Mike, that would definitely be the one I am worried about. cheers steph PS at our last EWG meeting in LA, where I was near brain dead, they fed us heavy ( I won’t say flour-less, but going in that direction) chocolate brownies at tea breaks. Provided a new lease on life….Perhaps we could find a donor who could ship us each a box, so we can get going again…. On May 3, 2014, at 9:45 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > Stephanie¹s admonition is especially true in light of possibility that > internet initiatives may emerge in the ITU Plenipotentiary in October. > Definitely better to get more work done sooner. > > > ‹Mike > > > -- > Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 > > Skype mnemonic1026 > Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. > www.internews.org | @internews > | facebook.com/internews > > > > > > > On 5/3/14, 9:40 PM, "Stephanie Perrin" > wrote: > >> Thanks for this summary, very interesting. I think it would be unwise to >> neglect a chance to move the yardsticks forward on enhanced cooperation, >> which means (probably, or at least IMHO) seizing the good bits from the >> attached document, cross fertilizing with the good bits from netmundial, >> reminding everyone how far the Internet has evolved since Tunis (and >> therefore the people must too), and building a platform for rough >> consensus on multistakeholder action. This would be a welcome input to >> discussion on other lists, where the interaction at times ranges from >> arid to bloated, but all in all this will help it be more productive, >> with substantive action items like this to build on. Personally, while I >> sure understand that everyone is tired, I don¹t believe we can sit on our >> hands until the end of 2014, there are too many things we need to push to >> the next level. >> Thanks >> Stephanie >> On May 3, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> And then there was the third day. >>> The last day. >>> >>> We spent the morning wandering through the wilderness of repeated >>> arguments. Reviewing and revising recommendations that had not reached >>> consensus, and some that had reached rough consensus - what we needed >>> was to reach full consensus. >>> >>> As we discussed them, sometimes we got tantalizingly close to full >>> consensus, but then one or another of us, and sometimes it was me I must >>> confess, said something that showed the closeness had been a tempting >>> illusion. >>> >>> We had tea breaks and coffee breaks where the chair and various groups >>> discussed the state of discussions to try and figure out what to do >>> next. >>> >>> We had lunch. >>> We talked, >>> and we talked. >>> >>> After lunch we finally admitted, in a consensual manner, that we were >>> not going to reach consensus on recommendations in this meeting. >>> >>> So we talking about the WG report, or rather, the Chair's report. >>> >>> Yes, we eventually did reach consensus on what to call the report! >>> >>> We then started to discuss the form and content of the Chair's Reports. >>> >>> Many of us told the Chair how much we trusted him to write the report >>> and be fair. >>> >>> Some of us went on to tell him what he had to avoid saying in order to >>> be fair. Maybe some trust is only skin deep. >>> >>> We went back on forth on what to do with the most valuable work done by >>> the correspondence group. Some of us wanted it to continue and become a >>> living artifact, and wanted that point made to the powers-that-be in the >>> CSTD. Others said it was just an exercise of the WG and should be >>> dropped - but i think that for these people the results of that work had >>> not verified their view that there were huge gaps to be fill >>> >>> (ok, so I am showing some prejudice in that last statement, please >>> forgive me. One of the few things that really bothered me during the >>> meeting was the apparent disrespect shown to the brave and worthy >>> volunteers who took on this large body of work only to have their >>> efforts deprecated - and no i did not help them and was not part of the >>> workforce - it was too hard a job for me and I avoided it like a >>> plague.) >>> >>> As for the future, there may be further meetings. >>> There may not be. >>> If there are, they may occur this year. >>> Or they may occur next year. >>> >>> I personally hope that we continue the work. but I hope we wait until >>> after all of Internet governance 2014 events are over, and after all >>> stakeholders have had time to adjust to the new realities that >>> NETmundial presents. And after the IGF, which I hope learns something >>> from NETmundial, and after the ITU PleniPot 2014 does whatever it is >>> going to do. >>> >>> I thought the meetings were valuable. I think the participants, and I >>> hope their fellow stakeholders - however they define the groups they are >>> part of, have a better understanding now than they did before. >>> >>> And while we did not come together in final consensus, I thought some of >>> the couplings at the meeting where wonderful. For example the KSA and >>> Iran, normally not the best of friends, were bosom buddies at this >>> meeting, united in their arguments on women's rights, treatment of >>> marginalized groups and a host of other issues. It is good that there >>> are still some things that can bring enemies such as this together. And >>> to see civil society members working closely with governments and with >>> business was a good thing too. If we can't work with the people we >>> disagree with, how are we going to solve anything - we learn to build on >>> the few things we do disagree with. >>> >>> Now I sound almost maudlin! >>> >>> One last thing: >>> >>> There was a possibility, as I mentioned in another one of these Quick >>> Updates that we would need to submit _Opinions_. While we never did, as >>> we never reached consensus to do so, several groups did arrive at a >>> possible offering. Several of us from civil society, though not all by >>> any means, did develop one. While I will leave it for the others who >>> worked on this with me to associate with it or not, and thus to put >>> themselves on the line to have to explain it, I am including this >>> compromise proto-document below as I think it includes a fair number of >>> ideas that are worthy of the light of day and of further discussion. >>> >>> Signing out from Geneva airport and the WGEC, at least for now >>> Who knows what the future will bring. >>> >>> ---------------------- >>> The Opinion >>> >>> This is the draft opinion of a group of Civil society participants >>> including group members Avri Doria, ... >>> >>> --- >>> Definitions >>> >>> Enhanced Cooperation: an ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral >>> process where all stakeholders contribute according to their expertise >>> and interests, to enable all other stakeholders to achieve full >>> participation in order to improve and democratise the governance of the >>> Internet at all levels. >>> >>> Multistakeholder process: a form of participatory democracy where any >>> person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. >>> >>> Equal footing: the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all >>> stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of >>> the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet >>> governance this is in line with stakeholders' roles and >>> responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with >>> reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by >>> governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, >>> contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number >>> of people that a representative may claim. >>> >>> Possible outcome: >>> >>> There is support within civil society for establishing a >>> multistakeholder mechanism, to promote the ongoing monitoring and >>> analysis of Internet-governance developments, and the on-demand sharing >>> of knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences that governments >>> and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions. We view >>> this as a first step, building on the work of the Correspondence Group >>> of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. There is also support >>> within civil society for a second step of a multistakeholder >>> coordination mechanism that would recommend the most appropriate venue >>> or venues to develop further policy as required. This could be >>> accomplished through existing institutions as appropriate. >>> >>> This mechanism could attached to an existing multistakeholder body such >>> the IGF (per paragraph 72 b of the Tunis Agenda), to the UN Commission >>> on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or to any comparable >>> venue consistent with the guiding principles as established in the >>> NETmundial Multistakeholder statement. >>> >>> The discussions of the WGEC take their origin from the Tunis Agenda. >>> The Tunis Agenda was a remarkable document for its time, that resulted >>> from government discussions at WSIS. The Tunis Agenda laid a basis for >>> ongoing discussions. The Tunis Agenda's great value was in giving an >>> impetus to the development of the multistakeholder model in Internet >>> governance. Over the intervening years, the variety of multistakeholder >>> models have progressed beyond what could have been imagined in 2005, in >>> line with technological evolution. Allowing the Tunis Agenda to remain a >>> static document, as if it was written in stone, risks it becoming ever >>> more irrelevant in today's world; Instead, we recommend that it be >>> treated as a living document, a solid foundation upon which we can build >>> our understanding of the enhanced cooperation of all stakeholders in the >>> area of Internet governance. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat May 3 22:56:55 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 10:56:55 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> <535FFB7F.20901@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <497E45BE-F315-460C-80BE-0611E17DB6F0@Malcolm.id.au> Sorry for the very delayed reply, I've been away and my access has been intermittent. Thanks for your perspective. It is interesting how divergently people have assessed our participation in the NETmundial process. You are proposing that we play more of an "outside game", critiquing the process and being more oppositional (whereas Stephanie, amongst others, have said the opposite). That is one possible approach, though most of the long-time civil society groups involved in Internet governance have played more of an inside game, working with governments and other stakeholders to try to reach consensus and nominating representatives to multi-stakeholder committees such as the MAG and CSTD working groups. It is not impossible for civil society to play both an inside and an outside game simultaneously, because certainly there are things that you cannot accomplish with only only one approach, and if managed carefully, they can reinforce rather than undermining each other. A good example is how success was eventually achieve against ACTA - there were those who took an oppositional approach by protesting in the streets, and there were those who privately lobbied MEPs, and success would not have resulted without both tactics. On the other hand protesting at the IGF will get you ejected from the venue by the UN police - quite literally - and they won't let you back in. So whereas you have compared the approach taken on IP issues within Internet governance processes to those that were used to defeat SOPA and PIPA, I don't agree that we would want to use the same approach. You would probably agree that the SOPA and PIPA tactics would not have been appropriate to achieve what we did at WIPO on the Marrakesh treaty, either. Similarly, in my past position when advocating for access to knowledge in the UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection, we played very much an inside game. In each case, the danger of being too oppositional is that you exclude yourself from the process altogether, and thereby limit your capacity to effect even incremental change. I believe that there is a lot of space for us to use both tactics, I just don't think that NETmundial, being such an innovative and potentially valuable door into multi-stakeholder policy development that could redound to our advantage in numerous different fora in the future, was the right place to be more oppositional than we were, either on IP or on any other issue. That said, there are other times and places to be radical on IP, and I am completely in accord with that. (Even then, some people will always criticise you for not being radical enough - because I'm not an abolitionist, I've been accused of this. And although I wasn't representing EFF at NETmundial, someone came up to me during the meeting complaining about how "soft" EFF had supposedly become on IP in recent years!) So I don't think that the approach that we took on the floor at NETmundial or that our representatives took in the drafting sessions was the wrong approach in this context, and to our credit we had been better prepared for this meeting (partly as a result of the pre-meeting) than we had been for previous engagements. As the WSIS civil society coordinating structures disintegrated, there was a time when we were not coordinating at all. WCIT last year was possibly a turning point, and the formation of Best Bits also helped. But due to limitations of time, internal disagreements, and different people taking leadership and not consulting with each other, it remains a bit chaotic, and some mistakes were made. We are definitely still learning how to coordinate well and effectively and there is a lot that we can do better next time. On 30 Apr 2014, at 3:25 pm, Achal Prabhala wrote: > From my understanding (through Anriette, Jeremy, Mishi and others) this is what seems to have happened within civil society re: copyright/IP these last few weeks: > > 1) Civil society went into this hoping to keep copyright and IP "out" of the language, both civil society language + NETmundial outcome doc language, as a strategy to avoid the inclusion of "protection" clauses. > > 2) However well-intentioned, I think this was an unwise strategy, since there had already been so much discussion on the copyright-IP-connected text in the draft NETmundial outcome doc, overwhelmingly dominated by rights-holders or their advocates, all in favour of explicitly protectionist language - which is to say it seemed inevitable that this would be lobbied strongly. A wiser strategy, given the run-up to NETmundial, would have been for civil society to have had a clear pro-sharing, anti- unilateral imposition of arbitrarily restrictive copyright position to stick to. > > 3) Some text to this effect was suggested by me and others at the April 22 meeting but was later discarded or lost. The text that was eventually used to articulate the civil society position discounted the importance of a stand against restrictive copyright/IP application, and seemed to have been written with a view to pre-empting what some saw as the eventual negotiated outcome of NETmundial. > > 4) Somehow (I say this because I don't understand it, and the few who participated in the process can't either; I won't assume bad faith, but I will assume an inadequate understanding of the issues at stake by some of the civil society people involved in drafting) the civil society *position* - uninfluenced by negotiation, in effect a statement of principles, released on April 23, 2014 (one full day before the NETmundial official outcome doc was negotiated and released) - contained inexcusable language around copyright, essentially endorsing a protectionist position on IP, in effect giving *in* to a negotiation with rights-holders and/or NETmundial *before a negotiation was even had*. (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) > > 5) Since there are several of us in civil society who have worked within FOSS, on copyright, IP and access to knowledge, since there are more of us who lived through the SOPA/PIPA discussions and participated in actions against them and have a strong understanding of the catastrophic effects of restrictively wielded IP rules, *and* since the IP-connected sections of the draft NETmundial outcome document were by far the most-commented sections in that text, *and* given that many of us in civil society feel that the IP issue in Internet governance ranks up there with surveillance and net neutrality as an overarching, immediate threat to online freedom across the world, the civil society position on this issue was shockingly inadequate, harmful and just plain bad. > > 6) You *must* therefore find a better process to represent constituent positions in any joint submission or statement in the future. I came to NETmundial fully expecting to be disappointed by the official NETmundial outcome document (as I was), because that's the way things are. But I did not expect to be even more disappointed by the pre-negotiation, pre-outcome, civil society position statement - and I was. Deeply. > > 7) I am unmoved by congratulatory statements that this meeting was "not so bad" and a "good start" or whatever: there were far too few of us who participated in protest actions at the meeting, and civil society was more anodyne than called for. (On a related note: the surveillance protests with Snowden masks were on the cover of every single Brazilian newspaper the next day). I'm relatively new to Internet governance, but not to activism around issues connected to the Internet. As an activist, I understand my role as having to be better prepared, more informed, more forceful, more sharp, more clever and more ingenious than anything governments and business can come up with, given that I command none of the vast resources of money and power they have. I'd urge this group to seriously consider complementing its more thoughtful interventions with dramatic, unreasonable action if it wants to not only get a seat at the table but actually be *heard*. > > All those distinguished master's degrees we've painstakingly accumulated won't be diminished by being a little cheeky :) > > Good wishes, > Achal > > > > On 30 April 2014 00:50, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > Thanks Jeremy, > > I had missed out on this traffic to understand how this all worked but I would still like thorough discussions on this issue for future if others agree. > > > On 04/29/2014 07:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors would be acceptable. >> >> I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from Pranesh's log of the transcript (at https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as delivered: >> >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH AS YOUR CO-CHAIR NOTED GENERATED THE MOST COMMENTS OF ANY PARAGRAPH. DUE TO THE MISCONCEPTION THAT REFERENCE TO PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION WAS ABOUT THE USE OF CREATIVE CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION. >> NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM SCIENTISTS, WE THINK OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE A FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO PERMISSION REQUIRED TO WRITE A SONG OR A PLAY OR A NOVEL. YOU JUST DO IT. AND INNOVATION ON THE INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME WAY. NOW INNOVATION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW. THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. I DON'T, THEREFORE, THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO SPELL OUT ALL THE LEGAL LIMITS TO INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST, OF WHICH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE JUST ONE. THOUGH IF WE WERE TO ADD THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PRINCIPLES IN THIS DOCUMENT," I DON'T SEE WHAT HARM THAT COULD DO. >> THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AS SOME HAVE CONTENDED. >> AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF RIGHTS IS ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND NOTHING THAT WE AGREE AT NETmundial CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE UDHR. >> SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS ADDED NEVERTHELESS IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE NECESSARY TO QUALIFY IT TO REFLECT THE NEED TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGHTS WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST. >> INDEED, PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS WITH THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY, SO WE SHOULD MENTION THAT, ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. >> I CAN SEND SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO -- AS A -- AS A STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF A RIGHT TO IP. >> SO IN CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF ANY, CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO OVERRIDE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS -- >> [TIMER SOUNDS ] >> -- THANK YOU. >> >>> So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, huge blow. >>> >>> I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. >> >> There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out of the pre-meeting. This was something that happened spontaneously because some of the organisers decided to do it. They did a good job, but one of the things that was lost was context - such as degrees of consensus around particular text (there was not a consensus on everything) and whether some text is a "last resort" position, etc. Part of the context that was lost for the IP text was that it was a "last resort" for how we could balance out the IP language if it was included by industry. So it is correct of you (Achal) to say that this proposing protection of IP rights is not a civil society position. I considered the text from the pre-meeting as more of a rough roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather than as an agreed text. Similarly the closing statement, which also happened spontaneously, cannot be considered as representing a civil society consensus. >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > -- > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat May 3 22:56:58 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 10:56:58 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Sao Paulo pre-meeting report? In-Reply-To: <5364C500.4040503@apc.org> References: <5364C500.4040503@apc.org> Message-ID: On 3 May 2014, at 6:29 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Attached is one of the working group discussion reports from the > pre-meeting session in Sao Paulo on principles which I moderated. This > report was submitted by Stephanie Perrin. I think most of the other > groups also submitted reports, and I know that Niels and Deborah and > Joana were taking notes. > > Is there any chance we can reconstruct some kind of report of the > meeting? We had really good discussions and it would be useful to > capture this in some way for future reference and use. Sorry for the delayed reply, I am away from home with intermittent access. I have uploaded this to the pre-meeting website as a report from the meeting at http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination/, and can upload any other reports that other groups have - if several, we can then work to integrate them. The notes that were being taken by Niels, Deborah and Joana were at https://csonetmundial.etherpad.mozilla.org/Comments. The version that we uploaded as "Civil society key points" that was used as a reference for our interventions at the meeting was taken from this. -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Sun May 4 00:59:27 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 04:59:27 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] POSTnetmundial civil society position In-Reply-To: <5364BF83.10705@wzb.eu> References: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B53AE@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,<5364BF83.10705@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B564F@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Dear Jeanette, I had the impression that there was some kind of agreement on the PREnetmundial text that leaked. Sorry if that was a misunderstanding. Here's a PREnetmundial v. NETmundial wikidiff (scroll down to "Line 43" to see where the similarities begin): http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox%2FNETmundial&diff=16684&oldid=16683 It's just a rough comparison, you could make it much more sophisticated with the help of other tools like Pippilongstrings :-) Best regards. //Erik ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Saturday 3 May 2014 12:05 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: [bestbits] POSTnetmundial civil society position Hi Erik, I think this is a great idea but I would suggest a slightly different approach. As you can see on this list, there has never been consensus, neither within nor across civil society boundaries. So, I don't think a consensual postnetmundial doc can be done. What I would find a valuable exercise is documenting the specific suggestions made by civil society for each paragraph. I know that Marilia compiled the comments made on the basis of the first draft outcome doc. Marilia's work would provide a very good starting point. Further suggestions could be added to her document. Jeanette Am 03.05.14 11:55, schrieb JOSEFSSON Erik: > I was pinged back to the list and encouraged to ask again if it would be > meaningful to update the official NETmundial text so that *forgotten > viewpoints* could be made visible again and *skewed language* aligned > with a POSTnetmundial civil society position. > > I am aware that such post processing work has already been done and that > what I'm suggesting is basically to do the same work again. > > The difference would simply be the format of the text. If the official > NETmundial text is reworked to a POSTnetmundial consensus position it > would be very easy to identify more precisely *"what went wrong"*, e.g. > with a wikidiff. > > If it is the case (I have understood it is) that, for example, the > phrase "the rights of authors and creators" has less support than a > reference to ICESCR has, it would look like this: > > *NETmundial:* > Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should > have the right to access, share, create and distribute information > on the Internet, consistent with the *rights of authors > *and*creators as established in law*. > > *POSTnetmundial:* > Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should > have the right to access, share, create and distribute information > on the Internet, consistent with the *UN International Covenant on > Economic, Social* and *Cultural Rights*. > > > And that edit would look like this in a wikidiff: > > http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox%2FNETmundial&diff=16666&oldid=16665 > > > And so on, throughout the NETmundial v. POSTnetmundial document. > > Anyone bites? :-) > > It would of course be a challenge to put experiences of procedures and > representation at NETmundial immediately into practice. But maybe that's > worth while exercise? > > Best regards. > > //Erik From lists at digitaldissidents.org Sun May 4 02:09:33 2014 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 08:09:33 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Sao Paulo pre-meeting report? In-Reply-To: <9C38C699-C236-47A0-B9AD-4398FCADE843@accessnow.org> References: <5364C500.4040503@apc.org> <53653E89.9020008@apc.org> <9C38C699-C236-47A0-B9AD-4398FCADE843@accessnow.org> Message-ID: <5365D99D.9070503@digitaldissidents.org> I'd be more than happy to add my notes as well. And text contributions that I've received per email as well. Let's open a pad. Was already starting to miss it. Cheers, Niels On 05/04/2014 12:05 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > I'm also happy to help Joana. Let's touch base after some rest. Great > idea Anriette! > All the best, > Deborah > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 3, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> No rush ! You need to get some rest. But good to know we can pull >> something together. Anriette >> >> >> On 03/05/2014 19:12, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> Dear Anriette, >>> Good idea. >>> I'll be happy to clean the notes and organize a report from civil soc >>> pre-meeting, which I guess shall be open for comments in case I've >>> got anything wrong. Just gimme some time. I guess after NetMundial, >>> FOC, WGEC its my first day off to land back on Earth. ;) So I'll need >>> around a week. >>> All the very best, >>> Joana >>> >>> On 3 May 2014 12:29, "Anriette Esterhuysen" >> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear Jeremy and all >>> >>> Attached is one of the working group discussion reports from the >>> pre-meeting session in Sao Paulo on principles which I moderated. >>> This >>> report was submitted by Stephanie Perrin. I think most of the other >>> groups also submitted reports, and I know that Niels and Deborah and >>> Joana were taking notes. >>> >>> Is there any chance we can reconstruct some kind of report of the >>> meeting? We had really good discussions and it would be useful to >>> capture this in some way for future reference and use. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 551 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Sun May 4 16:27:43 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 16:27:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: <497E45BE-F315-460C-80BE-0611E17DB6F0@Malcolm.id.au> References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> <535FFB7F.20901@softwarefreedom.org> <497E45BE-F315-460C-80BE-0611E17DB6F0@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Jeremy writes: "It is not impossible for civil society to play both an inside and an outside game simultaneously, because certainly there are things that you cannot accomplish with only only one approach, and if managed carefully, they can reinforce rather than undermining each other.” It’s difficult to overstate how true Jeremy’s observation is. Speaking as someone who was deeply involved in Wikipedia’s anti-SOPA strategy, I can assure you that we strategized “inside” and “outside” games more or less simultaneously. The anti-SOPA inside game, standing alone, was not going to be successful and a pure-protest outside game likely would not have been successful either. I’ve written about this for Sunlight Foundation (https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/02/07/guest-blogger-sunlight-got-it-wrong/), and I have a ten-minute-long YouTube presentation that addresses the same subject here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqQOvxyj66w. As I wrote in the Sunlight article: 'Now, once the the blackouts and other responses were being prepared and were implemented, certainly this enabled well-moneyed and well-established interests to say to policymakers, "Hey, this non-controversial stuff you've fast-tracked may not be so uncontroversial after all." And the fast and furious backtracking by supporters underscored what the policymakers were hearing. So you should not read me as saying that Google et al. simply got out of the way of the disgruntled public. There was synergy there, as there generally is in multifactorial human political events. The public protest enabled tech companies to say that the issue was a real one for individuals.' —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Sun May 4 21:01:08 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 01:01:08 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> <535FFB7F.20901@softwarefreedom.org> <497E45BE-F315-460C-80BE-0611E17DB6F0@Malcolm.id.au>, Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B5839@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> I'd sign up to that 'inside' and 'outside' thing wrt ACTA, but I would not really call it that "we strategized". Different paths were followed by different people who sometimes were in conflict with each other, at different times also on fundamental strategical issues e.g. whether to kill ACTA in Court or in Plenary (or even whether to kill ACTA at all). //Erik ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) [mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] Sent: Sunday 4 May 2014 22:27 To: Jeremy Malcolm; Achal Prabhala Cc: Mishi Choudhary; anriette at apc.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? Jeremy writes: "It is not impossible for civil society to play both an inside and an outside game simultaneously, because certainly there are things that you cannot accomplish with only only one approach, and if managed carefully, they can reinforce rather than undermining each other.” It’s difficult to overstate how true Jeremy’s observation is. Speaking as someone who was deeply involved in Wikipedia’s anti-SOPA strategy, I can assure you that we strategized “inside” and “outside” games more or less simultaneously. The anti-SOPA inside game, standing alone, was not going to be successful and a pure-protest outside game likely would not have been successful either. I’ve written about this for Sunlight Foundation (https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/02/07/guest-blogger-sunlight-got-it-wrong/), and I have a ten-minute-long YouTube presentation that addresses the same subject here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqQOvxyj66w. As I wrote in the Sunlight article: 'Now, once the the blackouts and other responses were being prepared and were implemented, certainly this enabled well-moneyed and well-established interests to say to policymakers, "Hey, this non-controversial stuff you've fast-tracked may not be so uncontroversial after all." And the fast and furious backtracking by supporters underscored what the policymakers were hearing. So you should not read me as saying that Google et al. simply got out of the way of the disgruntled public. There was synergy there, as there generally is in multifactorial human political events. The public protest enabled tech companies to say that the issue was a real one for individuals.' —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon May 5 03:50:29 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 09:50:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] JNC response to NetMundial Message-ID: <20140505095029.72db815e@quill> Just Net Coalition has released a response to the NetMundial Outcome Document: http://justnetcoalition.org/jnc-response-netmundial-outcome-document Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition The JNC Response to the NetMundial Outcome Document The Just Net Coalition recognizes the efforts of the organizers of NetMundial to achieve an outcome document, and welcomes certain important steps forward in the final text, particularly the emphasis on managing the Internet in the public interest. However, even though the document is non-binding, it leaves us deeply concerned about the inclusion and phrasing of certain clauses (such as those on intellectual property and private policing on the Internet), the omission of key issues including cyber-peace, the lack of progress on net neutrality, the weak language on mass surveillance, and above all about how the concept of new types of multistakeholder processes with new kinds of outputs, lacking any clear definition, might be construed by different actors in the future. For the Just Net Coalition, “democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance” means democratic processes with clear guidelines for multistakeholder participation in their respective roles and responsibilities. We are pleased that, thanks to numerous interventions, the NetMundial outcome was modified so that it does not favour the “equal-footing multi-stakeholder model” and thus a clear departure from the fundamental principles of the Tunis Agenda, as was proposed in the original draft of the outcome document. While Brazil's intent in convening this meeting was laudable, it is worrying that vested interests were able to unduly influence the meeting by controlling key committees, and as well that an attempt was made to gain an international endorsement for a new model of decision making on international issues. This “equal footing multi-stakeholder model” would quite clearly and strongly favour the interests of big business. We were pleased that this attempt did not succeed, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all attempts to effectively impose the rule of big business, or otherwise undermine democracy. We remain deeply concerned that processes such as the one used at NetMundial can easily lead to outcomes that are determined by the red-lines as well as the core interests of the most resourceful parties, which, at the global level, are often the US and big business. In the face of strong presence, resources and efforts by powerful interests, other voices may get forced on the back foot, even to the point of having to defend inclusion of what are universally agreed norms, such as happened at NetMundial. The NetMundial outcome document contains certain positive elements, particularly in that it recognizes that the Internet is to be managed “in the public interest”. While falling short of the civil society demand for characterizing the Internet as a “global commons” or “public good”, it is a considerable progress on the WSIS language, which says that the Internet is “a global facility available to the public and its governance should constitute a core issue of the Information Society agenda”. We hope that well developed and properly executed new democratic multistakeholder processes for Internet governance will explicitly foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of networks. Democratic governance processes will not implicitly favour the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. Such new processes must also address the appropriation of private data by governments and private companies and its subsequent monetisation by private companies. The NetMundial Process: A New Beginning, the democratic multi-stakeholder model President Rousseff said that the NetMundial was to be a dialogue between Multilateralism and Multistakeholderism. Indeed the final outcome document in the roadmap section accepts “the full involvement of all stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities” and is a welcome restatement of the WSIS consensus and the Tunis Agenda. The outcome document has further held, “Governments have primary, legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights”. The NetMundial outcome thus outlines a new phase within the Tunis Agenda, creating openings for specific improvements in the model of decision making that will be followed for future Internet governance. Employing these new openings wil involve clear definitions and guidelines for the “democratic multistakeholder process” model. NetMundial was clearly an attempt at institutionalising multistakeholderism at the global level. This implementation of “multistakeholderism in practice” included the seemingly open format of “selecting” the organising committee members, the overtly open agenda setting, and the universally accessible online invitation for contributions. However, processes for consolidating these submissions and for finding common ground were somewhat contentious, and the initially open and participatory drafting process was in strong contrast to rather less open, endgame processes. On one hand, these could be seen (optimistically) as somewhat halting steps towards the delineation of a multistakeholder policy formulation process in an appropriately inclusive and ultimately democratic manner, or alternatively as providing evidence of fundamental flaws in how multistakeholderism becomes operationalized. In that sense, should the fact that the initial selection processes for NetMundial positions were flawed and lacked broader legitimacy, that the organizing processes themselves were evidently captured by certain interested parties, and that the multistakeholder drafting processes were, in the end, heavily dominated by big business producing certain unfortunate results, be viewed as flaws of an immature system or as features of a model which ultimately only works for the few? In this regard, we see the reference to “democratic multistakeholder processes” in the document as a clear and compelling corrective. We now need to spell out what would constitute “democratic multistakeholder processes”. This of course includes the NetMundial call for further discussions on “different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance” and its two references to “respective roles and responsibilities”. This call should be taken as seeking an elaboration of what is a “democratic multistakeholder process” where, of course, corporations are not given equal status with citizens in decisions regarding public policy issues. The Just Net Coalition believes that democracy can be ensured only if public policy decisions are made by or can be overridden through democratic processes and actions which derive their legitimacy from citizens directly exercising their will, or from representatives or institutions who are also democratically accountable to the citizens they represent. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provide that everyone has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs (and thus in public policy decisions) directly or through freely chosen representatives. Stakeholder based processes should help widen the participatory base for engaging with such decision making processes but such a model cannot give corporations rights in policy-making equal to those of people, which would be in violation of the principles of democracy outlined in the UDHR and ICCPR. Areas where the NetMundial outcome document is not satisfactory We share the concerns of many civil society organizations regarding certain aspects of the NetMundial outcome document, see: http://bestbits.net/NetMundial-response. Instead of a simple statement that mass surveillance is incompatible with the right to privacy and endorsing the "necessary and proportionate" principle, the outcome language has been watered down with qualifiers that do not go beyond the UN General Assembly resolution of November 2013, which was itself a compromise. However, we note that the NetMundial statement stresses that governments have primary legal and political accountability for the protection of human rights. Those rights must be protected online as well as offline, and globally as well as nationally, because the Internet is a global system, as noted in the NetMundial outcome document. Thus, governments must protect the privacy of the personal data not just of their own citizens, but also of the data of persons not directly subject to their jurisdiction. Human rights accountability of governments is global. In the NetMundial outcome, there is no reference to cyber-weapons and cyber-peace. This is in spite of President Rousseff's call for addressing the issue of cyber-weapons. Another significant omission in the document is that of net neutrality. Marco Civil – the Internet Bill of Rights -- in Brazil and the European parliament have both recently advanced a commitment to net neutrality. Unfortunately, it would appear that business interests were able to bury net neutrality in the “Future Plans” section of the NetMundial outcome document. Two highly significant and in fact dangerous provisions related to copyright rights and copyright enforcement were introduced into the text at a very late stage on the basis of demands by business representatives. This happened well after it had been announced that new issues would be included only if there was consensus. Since clearly there was no consensus to add these provisions, they should not have been introduced into the NetMundial outcome document, and they are not validly part of it: First, while references to the “right to access, share, create and distribute information” exist in numerous UN documents on a standalone basis(1), the reference to this right in the NetMundial document is limited to what is “consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law”. The right to share and communicate has now been circumscribed by the rights of "authors and creators", which appears to be an attempt to expand copyright by adding something called creators to authors, whereas only authors are recognized in international copyright law. Also, we consider it unacceptable that in a normative document a human right is sought to be limited by whatever be the existing law, whether or not the law is human rights compliant. Our belief moreover is that the length of current copyright protection must be drastically reduced, for example to 15 years; and that non-commercial downloading of material under copyright must be made legal. Secondly, the topic of Internet intermediary liability limitations, having been introduced to protect the freedom of speech of Internet users, has now been coupled with “private policing” for enforcing Intellectual Property. Specific text has been added encouraging “cooperation among all stakeholders” in order to “address and deter illegal activity” which is in fact, well understood as coded language for private policing by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other intermediaries. It is interesting to note that these two points directly correspond to the two points on which civil society had disassociated itself from the OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making two years ago. Further, we see no reference in the document to the issues which President Rousseff referred to alongside issues of Internet access: i.e. the social and economic programmes that Brazil has introduced to respond to the needs of the poor. The Internet and the overall digital economy have become highly significant elements in the distribution and re-distribution of wealth, employment and opportunities both within countries and globally. Unfortunately, no reference was made in the outcome document to the measures which must be taken to ensure economic justice in the context of increased global penetration by the Internet and the digital economy. Finally, we note that the NetMundial language on the IANA(2) transition is very weak and essentially approves the current approach towards the transition. That approach was unilaterally established by the US government, with no prior open multistakeholder consultations, and it sets preconditions which were not subject to any open discussions. While we welcome a transition away from unilateral US government supervision of the IANA functions, we cannot welcome the unilateral way in which the conditions for the transition have been set, nor the fact that the US government will unilaterally decide whether or not the transition will take place. Also, since a possible outcome of this transition is that the IANA functions could be entrusted to ICANN(3) in a more permanent manner, it is not an example of good governance that ICANN itself seems to have been implicitly charged with managing the “open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community” for “discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends.” Just Net Coalition (Coalition for a Just and Equitable Internet) May 3, 2014 http://JustNetCoalition.org info at JustNetCoalition.org (1) The WSIS Declaration of Principles affirms that “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....”. (2) IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, is responsible in particular for the administrative processing of changes to the root zone for the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS). (3) ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is currently operating the IANA function on the basis of a contract with the US government. From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon May 5 11:56:24 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:56:24 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM In-Reply-To: References: <000601cf662a$60357750$20a065f0$@gmail.com> <8F42F62B-9F96-42B8-B5FC-577B6322B24C@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi all, I hope all the language is fixed today, and so the statement will go live without password protection. I hope more can join :-) Best and enjoy your week On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Indeed! My English interpreter says all ;) > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 2 May 2014 21:27, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> Godwin, your friend is not very good at English. "Computer-crime >> defendants" without a modifier means an indeterminate number of them, not >> all of them... So you were probably right. ;) >> >> [] fraterno >> >> --c.a. >> >> sent from a dumbphone >> >> On 02/05/2014, at 19:28, "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" < >> mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG> wrote: >> >> >> This reminds me of a friend who asked me a couple of decades back what I >> was doing in my post-law-school work. “I represent computer-crime >> defendants,” I told him. His response: “What? All of them?" >> -- >> >> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >> >> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >> >> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >> >> *Address* 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA >> >> >> >> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* >> >> www.internews.org | @internews | >> facebook.com/internews >> >> From: michael gurstein >> Reply-To: michael gurstein >> Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 at 1:17 PM >> To: 'Carolina Rossini' , 'Eduardo Bertoni' < >> ebertoni65 at gmail.com> >> Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM >> >> Carolina in the statement (and in the other statement as I recall) the >> terminology of “we as civil society” was used repeatedly either directly >> or as implied. >> >> >> >> Perhaps, given what you say below you might want to correct that (it >> seems a wee bit arrogant to my ears to be claiming to be speaking on behalf >> of all of civil society—I know for example that I, and my Community >> Informatics colleagues weren’t consulted… and I’m guessing that the other >> several billion or so folks who might identify themselves as CS weren’t >> consulted either. >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ >> mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] >> *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini >> *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 5:23 PM >> *To:* Eduardo Bertoni >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM >> >> >> >> I do not think it is a contradiction. It just mirrors different >> reflections by many who did not feel represented in the statement delivered >> at the end. BB is a platform, not a body or an organization. Not every >> statement is signed by every organization engaged in BB activities. That is >> how I see this and - if I understood correctly many of the discussions of >> this list and face to face meetings - that is how the majority of folks >> feels about it. >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Eduardo Bertoni >> wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> >> I am a bit confused. Maybe my confusion comes because, as I asked in the >> meeting in Bali, it is not clear what bestbits is. Is it a network of >> organizations? A platform for open discussions? etc. >> >> >> >> At the end of NetMundial a document called " >> Civil society closing statement at NETmundial 2014 >> >> " was distributed. My understanding was that it was our 'bestbits' >> "closing" statement. Then I read statements coming from many individual >> organizations. That, of course, is perfectly fine. And now I see there is >> another document distributed by Carolina, with a different tone and a >> different perspective, also in bestbits. The new title is >> Civil society statement: reflections on NETmundial >> >> >> >> So, just to understand clearly: Why is it necessary to issue a new >> bestbits document? Don´t you think that having too many documents with >> different views about NetMundial demonstrates the lack of consensus of >> civil society about the final output of NetMundial? >> >> >> >> Apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding these two documents. But I >> think the tone in each is entirely different, and since I signed the first >> one, it would be hard to sign the second one. >> >> >> >> The fact that there is no consensus is not necessarily a problem. >> However, it could be used by governments and others to stop listening to us >> because they could point out that we don't have a common understanding of >> critical issues. Why should we open the door to that? >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> Eduardo Bertoni >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> >> >> During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us >> have been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received >> inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel >> we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to >> you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial >> results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I >> do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document >> until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a >> password. >> >> >> >> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ >> >> pass: bestbits >> >> >> >> Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look >> for Jeremy online to adopt those. >> >> >> >> I hope you can consider signing it. >> >> >> >> Thank you >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini* >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >> skype: carolrossini >> >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini* >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >> skype: carolrossini >> >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> >> >> Click hereto report this email as spam. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon May 5 20:17:50 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 20:17:50 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] PAPER - An Analysis of Global Swing States in the Internet Governance Debate Message-ID: Tipping the Scale: An Analysis of Global Swing States in the Internet Governance Debate Internet Governance Papers No. 7 SERIES: INTERNET GOVERNANCE BY: TIM MAURER AND ROBERT MORGUS PUBLISHED: MAY 5, 2014 DOWNLOAD PDF ------------------------------ In December 2012, numerous news outlets reported on the debate over Internet governance that took place at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. It was the first time in nearly a decade that the topic attracted major international media attention. A key aspect of the post-WCIT discussion has centred on the role of “swing states” in this global debate. So far, most of this work has been based on predefined groups of countries or focused on countries based on anecdotal evidence of a vibrant tech community or existing relationships. The study discussed in this paper applied a more systematic approach. The research revealed some interesting patterns among certain groups of states. A core group of potential swing states — a total of 30 countries — are identified based on their voting behaviour at the WCIT, their various memberships and a range of relevant indicators. This list offers a road map for future in-depth studies. Ideally, it will also serve as a resource for practitioners and academics alike for comparison with current efforts and for future strategic planning that focuses on engaging other actors internationally. -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu May 1 08:26:14 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 14:26:14 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. JC Post-scriptum: John, Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? JC Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : > On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. > > If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models > of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a > repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... > > If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such > improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to > maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding > years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in > agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan > for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out > the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform > that we've just very successfully created. > > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue May 6 07:58:05 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 07:58:05 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I hope some of you might consider supporting this great effort. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Ginger Paque* Date: Monday, May 5, 2014 Subject: [igcbp-talk] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? To: "Igcbp08h at Googlegroups. Com" Hi everyone, Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for your IG course? I do! Funding for deserving students has become very difficult to find, so we are trying new possibilities. Please read about it, and help us if you can. Donations and passing this information to others both count as helping... We have launched our first crowdfunding attempt, through the Pozible platform: http://www.pozible.com/project/180875/. You will recognise Desiree Zachariah, an IG alumnus, as the first participant speaking on the video. We are starting with a very modest goal: to raise funds for several scholarships for our summer courses. However, we hope this will eventually develop into a substantial fund which we can use in different ways to support the participation of people from small and developing states in our courses. We will explore other ways to build this fund also. The idea with crowdfunding is to collect a large number of small (or medium-sized) donations. To do this, we need to reach as wide as possible an audience with the invitation to contribute and to share. We’ll be announcing this via our various channels (DiploNews, alumni, FB, Twitter, etc). In case you have ideas for spreading it more widely, please let us know your suggestions. And if you know anyone who might like to contribute with a small or even not-so-small donation, please invite them to do so! We have also established a page on our website to support this fund: http://www.diplomacy.edu/aboutus/support/fund In case of any suggestions or ideas, please let us know. Best wishes, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** * -- -- Please note that when replying to this message will send your reply to the whole group! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IGCBP Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to igcbp-talk at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to igcbp-talk-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/igcbp-talk?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IGCBP Talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to igcbp-talk+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue May 6 08:53:23 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 18:23:23 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a good idea and a good effort.. Hope it receives ample publicity and attracts a generous 'crowd' of Donors. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > I hope some of you might consider supporting this great effort. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Ginger Paque* > Date: Monday, May 5, 2014 > Subject: [igcbp-talk] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? > To: "Igcbp08h at Googlegroups. Com" > > > Hi everyone, > > Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for your > IG course? I do! Funding for deserving students has become very difficult > to find, so we are trying new possibilities. Please read about it, and help > us if you can. Donations and passing this information to others both count > as helping... > > We have launched our first crowdfunding attempt, through the Pozible > platform: > http://www.pozible.com/project/180875/. You will recognise Desiree > Zachariah, an IG alumnus, as the first participant speaking on the video. > > We are starting with a very modest goal: to raise funds for several > scholarships for our summer courses. However, we hope this will eventually > develop into a substantial fund which we can use in different ways to > support the participation of people from small and developing states in our > courses. We will explore other ways to build this fund also. > > The idea with crowdfunding is to collect a large number of small (or > medium-sized) donations. To do this, we need to reach as wide as possible > an audience with the invitation to contribute and to share. We’ll be > announcing this via our various channels (DiploNews, alumni, FB, Twitter, > etc). In case you have ideas for spreading it more widely, please let us > know your suggestions. And if you know anyone who might like to contribute > with a small or even not-so-small donation, please invite them to do so! > > We have also established a page on our website to support this fund: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/aboutus/support/fund > > In case of any suggestions or ideas, please let us know. > > Best wishes, > Ginger > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, > Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical > Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** > * > > -- > -- > Please note that when replying to this message will send your reply to the > whole group! > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "IGCBP Talk" group. > To post to this group, send email to igcbp-talk at googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > igcbp-talk-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/igcbp-talk?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "IGCBP Talk" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to igcbp-talk+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue May 6 09:07:40 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 14:07:40 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for your > IG course? I do! > +1 to this, and i trust that this will really receive the deserved support. I like the idea of partial sponsorship for the online course participants. Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Tue May 6 09:23:21 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 08:23:21 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Carolina, Seun and others. Scholarship funding is not easy, and aspiring participants have a difficult time finding sponsors. Small steps will get us there, and your help is much appreciated! Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** * On 6 May 2014 08:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for >> your IG course? I do! >> > > +1 to this, and i trust that this will really receive the deserved > support. I like the idea of partial sponsorship for the online course > participants. > > Regards > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue May 6 09:39:38 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:39:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is I a great idea, is there a way to get some of the infrastructure players to promote it? I am thinking of ICANN and the registrars.... Stephanie Perrin Sent from my iPad > On May 6, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Thanks, Carolina, Seun and others. Scholarship funding is not easy, and aspiring participants have a difficult time finding sponsors. Small steps will get us there, and your help is much appreciated! > Cheers, Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses > > > >> On 6 May 2014 08:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for your IG course? I do! >> >> +1 to this, and i trust that this will really receive the deserved support. I like the idea of partial sponsorship for the online course participants. >> >> Regards >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gpaque at gmail.com Tue May 6 10:56:06 2014 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:56:06 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Diplo asks you to 'pass it on' - can you help us? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Stephanie, this is a great idea. Social media 'lore' suggests that the best way to connect to institutions is to connect directly to the people in them that we know. Personal connections are the essence of crowd funding, at least in our approach. This is a pilot attempt, so we are experimenting and any comments, suggestions or feedback are welcome, perhaps offlist. Please feel free to contact me at gpaque[at]gmail.com (my list address) or virginiap[at]diplomacy.edu (my Diplo email). If anyone can pass on this request, on individuals in organisations of this (or any other) kind, we would appreciate it very much. Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** * On 6 May 2014 08:39, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > This is I a great idea, is there a way to get some of the infrastructure > players to promote it? I am thinking of ICANN and the registrars.... > Stephanie Perrin > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 6, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Thanks, Carolina, Seun and others. Scholarship funding is not easy, and > aspiring participants have a difficult time finding sponsors. Small steps > will get us there, and your help is much appreciated! > Cheers, Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *Upcoming online courses: Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, > Multilateral Diplomacy, 21st Century Diplomacy, Infrastructure and Critical > Internet Resources, Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses ** > * > > > > On 6 May 2014 08:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Do you remember eagerly waiting and hoping you had gotten funding for >>> your IG course? I do! >>> >> >> +1 to this, and i trust that this will really receive the deserved >> support. I like the idea of partial sponsorship for the online course >> participants. >> >> Regards >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt >> email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> * >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Tue May 6 18:15:22 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 18:15:22 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: ] Request for Comments:Enhancing ICANN Accountability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53695EFA.8060201@acm.org> fyi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [liaison6c] Request for Comments:Enhancing ICANN Accountability Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 14:45:54 -0700 From: Glen de Saint Géry To: liaison6c http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/enhancing-accountability-06may14-en.htm Enhancing ICANN Accountability Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 6 May 2014 Comment Close Date: 27 May 2014 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 28 May 2014 Reply Close Date: 18 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement To Submit Your Comments (Forum) View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): As announced at ICANN's March 2014 Public Meeting in Singapore, ICANN is initiating a discussion on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. This discussion will look at how ICANN remains accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role. While related to the ongoing discussions around the IANA Stewardship Transition, this is a separate process, though the output of this process is expected to be completed on the same timeframe as the stewardship transition work. Current Status: ICANN is initiating the community discussion on enhancement of ICANN's accountability through the posting of a background document and questions for input. Next Steps: The responses received will be compiled and analyzed. Prior to ICANN's June 2014 Public Meeting in London, ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be requested to start identifying Working Group participants, so that the work can start in earnest at ICANN 50 after community input is received. Staff Contact: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President on Strategy Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: On March 14, 2014, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its stewardship over key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. NTIA asked ICANN, as the IANA functions contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS, to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal for the transition. During discussions around the IANA stewardship transition, the community has also raised the broader topic of the impact of the transition on ICANN accountability. While the community develops a proposal for the transition of NTIA's stewardship role, it is important that the community also address the separate – but interdependent and interrelated – issue of ICANN's accountability. As a result, ICANN is launching a separate process, the scope of which is to look at ICANN remaining accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role, such as the renewal process of the IANA Functions Contract. This second process will examine from an organizational perspective how ICANN's broader accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government. This includes looking at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation of Commitments . This process is additive, not a duplication of any of the reviews called for under the Affirmation of Commitments. This Accountability Process is envisioned to be coordinated by the ICANN Accountability Working Group, comprised of community members as well subject-matter experts in a range of areas, including: * Internet Technical Operations * International Organizational Reviews * Global Accountability Tools and Metrics * Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanism * Internet Consumer Protection * Economics (Marketplace and Competition) * Global Ethics Frameworks * Operational, Finance and Process * Board Governance * Transparency * Risk Management The Enhancing ICANN Accountability page sets out the detail of the proposed terms of reference for the process as well as setting forth questions designed to provide input to the ICANN Accountability Working Group. For ease of reference, the questions posed are: * What issues does the community identify as being core to strengthening ICANN's overall accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? * What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working Group's mandate? * Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's accountability and so, how? * What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is meeting its accountability commitments? * Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments? * What additional comments would you like to share that could be of use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group? As the public comment period is underway, ICANN will be reaching out to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees regarding the identification of Working Group members. ICANN anticipates that the Working Group will commence its work, including consideration of community input, during ICANN 50 in June 2014. It's expected that sub-working groups on specialized subject areas will be useful and open to all. Section II: Background: The Enhancing ICANN Accountability page sets forth detail on the community consultation that led to the creation of this ICANN Accountability Process, as well as an inventory of ICANN's current accountability efforts. Section III: Document and Resource Links: Community input is sought on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability proposal. Further background on the IANA Stewardship Transition is available at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition. Section IV: Additional Information: N/A ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed May 7 23:42:26 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 00:42:26 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BNewsletter=5D_Digital_Rights=3A_La?= =?UTF-8?Q?tin_Am=C3=A9rica_=26_The_Caribbean=2E_N=C2=B010?= In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> Message-ID: Sorry for the cross-posting. You will find below the 10th issue of the newsletter Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean. The goal of this monthly publication is to produce news and analysis about Internet related policies and regulation in the LAC region. All articles are translated into English, Spanish and Portuguese. The newsletter is a joint project from Asociación Derechos Civiles (Argentina), Derechos Digitales (Chile), CTS/FGV (Brazil) and Fundación Karisma (Colombia). Website: http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en Subscribe: http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/suscripcion/ Best, Marília Here you will find monthly analysis and information about the state of digital rights in Latin American and the Caribbean. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.. WELCOME As a notable feature of this tenth edition we will have an interesting analysis of the recent report on Freedom of Expression and the Internet published by the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). In parallel, our brothers in Colombia tell us about the long-awaited presidential approval of the law on access to public information in the month of March while in Brazil the debate focuses on outlining an agenda that can shape a law on protection of personal data to ensure minimum standards of privacy protection. We will also find the controversial case of The Telecommunications Act in Mexico and debates about its process of discussion and an interesting reflection on the practical implications regarding the exemption of visa for Chilean citizens which stems from an agreement for exchanging information signed between the two governments. And of course, news, events and various recommended contents in *"Digital Rights: Latin America and The Caribbean"* Newsletter. Good reading! A Key Tool in the Struggle for a Free Internet The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has published the report Freedom of Expression and the Internet. This report probably constitutes the main legal and constitutional tool to advance the struggle for a free and open Internet in the Americas. Read more . Is the automatic visa for entering the United States a cause for celebration? From anne at webfoundation.org Thu May 8 02:38:37 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 14:38:37 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? Message-ID: Hi all Are there any plans for a civil society pre-meeting before, or caucus during, the upcoming CSTD meeting in Geneva? My colleague Sonia will be there and we're keen to coordinate interventions and lobbying. Best Anne -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Thu May 8 02:47:37 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 08:47:37 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9F9AF66A-8FBD-41B4-91B9-9B784BB0D0E8@consensus.pro> I will be there, as IDEA (Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance), which is an NGO that brings together companies and NGOs, so a bit of a hybrid. I won't be there all day every day, but in and out, though I'll be around all of Wednesday I'm sure. A question I would pose: given that negotiations in NY on the WSIS review are stuck, what is the proposed plan B if it remains stuck? I've asked various countries this question, and while they acknowledge that we need a 'plan b' there isn't one. -- Regards, Nick Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 email: nashton at consensus.pro GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com PGP: 6995293D Fingerprint: 9794 3DC C 8F 27 9 BF8 3105 298 1 96 FA F 538 6995 293 D Skype: nashtonhart “Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.” - Plato On 8 May 2014, at 08:38, Anne Jellema wrote: > Hi all > Are there any plans for a civil society pre-meeting before, or caucus during, the upcoming CSTD meeting in Geneva? > My colleague Sonia will be there and we're keen to coordinate interventions and lobbying. > Best > Anne > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From iza at anr.org Thu May 1 08:29:43 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 21:29:43 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <53622767.3080206@wzb.eu> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> <53622767.3080206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I was not that comfortable while some CS members got quite angry and discussing walk out or sending strong statement against the final MSH statement. But I did not take much action myself. I was quite relieved to hear the big applause just after Adam and Jeanette read there portions. Yes, some CS members were not standing up, but still I could see some other CS members standing and applauding, including myself. Here are two vide clips I took and shared. First one, right after Jeanette read, you could see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkRtgJjtOQQ This shows the second instance after the Chair asked the floor to adopt with acclamation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4TD1_3UUx4 Final list of registered participants who agreed to put their names were published here: http://netmundial.br/blog/2014/04/20/netmundial-announces-list-of-registered-participants/ CS composes more than 30%. Of course these are only those who agreed to publish their names and since the total number of participants exceeded 1200, it is less than half. Government 91 19.9% CS 145 31.7% Business 71 15.5% Academia 73 16.0% TC 77 16.8% Total 457 So while 30 to 50 or 60 people who did not stand and support the MSH statement are not small, it did not represent the majority of CS either. In the past, at IGF or its MAG meeting in particular, some CS members were reporting on the fly, and many CS members were using Skype chat to communicate in real time. This time, at least I have not seen such effort. Other than the Bestbits meeting as pre-event, I have not heard much CS meetings inside NETmundial. This means CS by and large did not have well coordinating mechanism, and thus could not "lobby" that effectively. Yet, the trusted CS members both at EMC and HLMC and those in the drafting sessions did the great job of pushing most of CS agenda, especially on human rights and the wording of MSH, into the final document. Not an easy job under that circumstances. I thank you again. This is my personal view only. izumi 2014-05-01 19:52 GMT+09:00 Jeanette Hofmann : > Hi Ian, > > the only cs people I could see against the light directed towards the > stage during the closing ceremony where those who didn't get up when most > most people in the room had risen and applauded process and/or outcome. > > Less than 30 minutes before the closing ceremony, both statement and > process where about to collapse due to a few governments who weren't > willing to support the principle section of the outcome document. These > governments hadn't been part of the editing process and probably hadn't > monitored it either. They looked at the changes being made to the draft > document some hours before and simply said no to some of what they saw on > the screen, or wanted text included that they didn't see on that screen. In > this situation it occurred to me how very risky the process was that we had > sketched out earlier that week. Board and committees simply hoped that the > outcome would be legitimate and acceptable to the majority of attendees. > > While more and more government reps expressed their discont and the > meeting was running over time, I tried to imagine what a failure of > netmundial would mean for the future evolution of the multistakeholder > process. For years to come, I thought, we would be stuck with the IG truism > that one can have either multistakeholder and chairman reports or more > specific outcomes BUT NOT BOTH. We would have faced an agonizing stalemate > for a long time despite all the goodwill and efforts to push this fragile > baby forward. If we had ended with yet another chairman's report, > netmundial would have be interpreted by many as a confirmation of the > limits of multistakeholder processes. > > I was so relieved when we achieved a compromise and prevented the process > from failing! And this is why I found it pretty hard to listen to the cs > statement and watch you all sitting their with your arms folded and not > even a little smile on your faces. > The only person who sensed the split between cs in the audience and cs on > the stage was Anja. After some hesitation she got up. I felt like hugging > her, and I wholeheartedly did after the closure. > > I guess what I want to say is that it a bit of expectation management > among civil society wouldn't hurt. This includes putting outcomes such as > the Sao Paulo statement into perspective while they are negotiated. Only a > few years ago we were unable to get consensus for IGF main sessions > focussing on human rights. Plus, is is still open if we will ever move > beyond a chair man's report at the IGF. Recent reflections by cs people on > netmundial move into this direction. > > jeanette > > Am 30.04.14 21:44, schrieb Ian Peter: > > The Niels statement was drawn up quickly by a group of about 30 of us >> sitting in the CS quarters of the conference hall after the changed text >> was leaked showing the last minute changes after the text left the two >> drafting committees. >> >> Some of us would have gone further. Some were considering a walk out. >> The text was probably indicative of a more balanced approach given the >> mood at the time. >> >> With a bit of distance from the disappointment at those changes, perhaps >> many feel differently. But it was an honest attempt to capture the mood >> at the time and I am personally glad civil society said something rather >> than nothing. >> >> But with a bit of distance from the event perhaps many of us have other >> thoughts. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake >> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:31 PM >> To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Cc: Andrew Puddephatt ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 >> outcome text open for endorsement >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. >>> >>> >> >> Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the >> impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to >> speak and who did they say they represented? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt >>> wrote: >>> >>> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of >>>> positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole >>>> process. I can’t support this statement >>>> >>>> Andrew Puddephatt >>>> Global Partners Digital >>>> Andrew at gp-digital.org >>>> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >>>> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >>>> To: "" >>>> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome >>>> text open for endorsement >>>> >>>> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text >>>> was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society >>>> representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever >>>> from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >>>> >>>> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil >>>> society response later. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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: From anriette at apc.org Thu May 8 03:51:48 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 09:51:48 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <536B3794.90908@apc.org> Dear Anne Mike Jensen from APC will be there. Anriette On 08/05/2014 08:38, Anne Jellema wrote: > Hi all > Are there any plans for a civil society pre-meeting before, or caucus > during, the upcoming CSTD meeting in Geneva? > My colleague Sonia will be there and we're keen to coordinate > interventions and lobbying. > Best > Anne > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > * > * > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org > | Twitter: @webfoundation* > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ceo at bnnrc.net Thu May 8 04:22:13 2014 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 14:22:13 +0600 Subject: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? Message-ID: *Dear All,* I am going to join CSTD meeting. If you would like to organize any pre- meeting, Pls inform me. With Solidarity, *Bazlu* ________________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|* Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) *[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]* House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|* Bangladesh*|* Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr cbd at gmail.com *|* www.bnnrc.net On 8 May 2014 12:38, Anne Jellema wrote: > Hi all > Are there any plans for a civil society pre-meeting before, or caucus > during, the upcoming CSTD meeting in Geneva? > My colleague Sonia will be there and we're keen to coordinate > interventions and lobbying. > Best > Anne > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lea at gp-digital.org Thu May 8 06:15:15 2014 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 11:15:15 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? In-Reply-To: <9F9AF66A-8FBD-41B4-91B9-9B784BB0D0E8@consensus.pro> References: <9F9AF66A-8FBD-41B4-91B9-9B784BB0D0E8@consensus.pro> Message-ID: Hi Nick, all, I might come to Geneva for a day on the 14th to see the follow up on the WGEC discussions - the CSTD is to decide whether or not to extend the mandate of the Group. While the WGEC extension is still up in the air, it is likely that at least the gaps analysis that the WGEC Correspondence Group initiated is taken forward through the CSTD Secretariat. A fact-based gaps analysis is the right way to go IMO and could help bring about a more sober discussion on IG reform. On the WGEC itself, it would be useful to discuss a CS position on a potential extension. Some delegations in favour a continuation see it as a strategy to keep the IG discussions out of the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary. However, it is unclear to me what value the extension could yield beyond this potential strategic benefit (the current deadlock seems unlikely to be broken even if they have 50 additional meetings). On the other hand, if the Group is discontinued, a number of sticky debates, including the one on roles and responsibilities, will likely spill over into other fora, like the WSIS+10 review process. Which brings us to the status of the WSIS modalities discussion - Nick, are you saying that there hasn't been any movement towards consensus on the most recent modalities draft (attached)? At the moment, the modalities in the draft seem to revert back to the 2003/2005 WSIS process. Part of the difficulty in NY is the inability to splinter the G77 and get countries like Brazil to bring lessons and experiences from their national environments (and from for instance NetMundial) to the table instead of automatically siding with the positions pushed for by China and Russia. This makes it difficult to get modalities that are more open and participatory, which we as CS would presumably want. Perhaps one thing to lobby for at the CSTD is to acknowledge the NetMundial outcomes in some way? We have precedent for this in the most recent GA ICT4D Res from December which had the following text: "Welcoming the announcement by Brazil that the country will host the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance, to be held in São Paulo on 23 and 24 April 2014." Just an idea. Not really an answer to what a plan B could be, sorry :) I'd be interested to hear what others think. Best, Lea From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: 08 May 2014 07:48 To: Anne Jellema Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Sonia Jorge Subject: Re: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? I will be there, as IDEA (Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance), which is an NGO that brings together companies and NGOs, so a bit of a hybrid. I won't be there all day every day, but in and out, though I'll be around all of Wednesday I'm sure. A question I would pose: given that negotiations in NY on the WSIS review are stuck, what is the proposed plan B if it remains stuck? I've asked various countries this question, and while they acknowledge that we need a 'plan b' there isn't one. -- Regards, Nick Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 email: nashton at consensus.pro GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com PGP: 6995293D Fingerprint: 9794 3DC C 8F 27 9 BF8 3105 298 1 96 FA F 538 6995 293 D Skype: nashtonhart "Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." - Plato On 8 May 2014, at 08:38, Anne Jellema > wrote: Hi all Are there any plans for a civil society pre-meeting before, or caucus during, the upcoming CSTD meeting in Geneva? My colleague Sonia will be there and we're keen to coordinate interventions and lobbying. Best Anne -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Revised draft.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57794 bytes Desc: Revised draft.pdf URL: From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Thu May 8 06:46:16 2014 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:46:16 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] EU rejects international solution to library and archive copyright problems; causes collapse of WIPO meeting Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E01C5C7F3@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Dear Colleagues I thought you might be interested in some of the problems libraries and archives experienced at the World Intellectual Property Organisation last week regarding access to digital content. It was quite a scene. http://www.ifla.org/node/8600 Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Another document was also introduced by the US at this meeting which talks about how licensing is a principle of access to educational resources. For those of us who work in education/academia, I would suggest that there is a fair bit to worry about in this document. I'd be happy to share it as soon as I get an electronic copy. Kind regards, Stuart Stuart Hamilton Director of Policy and Advocacy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 Twitter: @ifladpa From nashton at consensus.pro Thu May 8 07:22:18 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 13:22:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? In-Reply-To: References: <9F9AF66A-8FBD-41B4-91B9-9B784BB0D0E8@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <57249483-7012-459E-A722-EE0134A451D5@consensus.pro> Dear Lea, Thanks for such a thoughtful note. On WGEC, I don't have a strong view one way or another - this is one of an increasing number of processes here in Geneva that are getting deadlocked that relate to IG. On the WSIS modalities - my understanding is that this is a narrowing of a gap (what you have provided) but it is still not settled. I have to call some friends in NY missions to talk to them. Amongst the other problems with a 2-day special event in December is that it is after the MDG summit, rather than before, which could make it rather more difficult to try and align the two processes so the next phase of WSIS follow up actually is more development focussed, which it has not been. The other issue is that the draft doesn't really specify that there is any follow-up process outside of CSTD, which could be good: providing that what CSTD proposes to do is structured in a way we all think reasonable. Given that the next CSTD is next week and the GA process is still not settled, how is CSTD to decide upon how the review is to be conducted if it is not sure to be conducting it? Hence the need for a Plan B (or even a Plan that is CSTD-centric, which might - or might not - be plan a ;)) On 8 May 2014, at 12:15, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Hi Nick, all, > > I might come to Geneva for a day on the 14th to see the follow up on the WGEC discussions – the CSTD is to decide whether or not to extend the mandate of the Group. > > While the WGEC extension is still up in the air, it is likely that at least the gaps analysis that the WGEC Correspondence Group initiated is taken forward through the CSTD Secretariat. A fact-based gaps analysis is the right way to go IMO and could help bring about a more sober discussion on IG reform. On the WGEC itself, it would be useful to discuss a CS position on a potential extension. Some delegations in favour a continuation see it as a strategy to keep the IG discussions out of the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary. However, it is unclear to me what value the extension could yield beyond this potential strategic benefit (the current deadlock seems unlikely to be broken even if they have 50 additional meetings). On the other hand, if the Group is discontinued, a number of sticky debates, including the one on roles and responsibilities, will likely spill over into other fora, like the WSIS+10 review process. > > Which brings us to the status of the WSIS modalities discussion – Nick, are you saying that there hasn’t been any movement towards consensus on the most recent modalities draft (attached)? At the moment, the modalities in the draft seem to revert back to the 2003/2005 WSIS process. Part of the difficulty in NY is the inability to splinter the G77 and get countries like Brazil to bring lessons and experiences from their national environments (and from for instance NetMundial) to the table instead of automatically siding with the positions pushed for by China and Russia. This makes it difficult to get modalities that are more open and participatory, which we as CS would presumably want. Perhaps one thing to lobby for at the CSTD is to acknowledge the NetMundial outcomes in some way? We have precedent for this in the most recent GA ICT4D Res from December which had the following text: “Welcoming the announcement by Brazil that the country will host the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance, to be held in São Paulo on 23 and 24 April 2014.” Just an idea. > > Not really an answer to what a plan B could be, sorry J > > I’d be interested to hear what others think. > > Best, > Lea > > From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > Sent: 08 May 2014 07:48 > To: Anne Jellema > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Sonia Jorge > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? > > I will be there, as IDEA (Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance), which is an NGO that brings together companies and NGOs, so a bit of a hybrid. I won't be there all day every day, but in and out, though I'll be around all of Wednesday I'm sure. > > A question I would pose: given that negotiations in NY on the WSIS review are stuck, what is the proposed plan B if it remains stuck? I've asked various countries this question, and while they acknowledge that we need a 'plan b' there isn't one. > -- > Regards, > > Nick > Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > email: nashton at consensus.pro > GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com > PGP: 6995293D > Fingerprint: 9794 3DC C 8F 27 9 BF8 3105 298 1 96 FA F 538 6995 293 D > Skype: nashtonhart > > “Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.” - Plato > > > > > > On 8 May 2014, at 08:38, Anne Jellema wrote: > > > Hi all > Are there any plans for a civil society pre-meeting before, or caucus during, the upcoming CSTD meeting in Geneva? > My colleague Sonia will be there and we're keen to coordinate interventions and lobbying. > Best > Anne > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu May 8 07:22:21 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 13:22:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] EU rejects international solution to library and archive copyright problems; causes collapse of WIPO meeting In-Reply-To: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E01C5C7F3@MFP02.IFLA.lan> References: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E01C5C7F3@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <536B68ED.7010508@apc.org> Dear Stuart I am so sorry to hear this. I know how hard many of you have been working in WIPO to find solutions to the many ways in which trends in copyright enforcement is limiting access to knowledge in general, and the role of libraries in providing information in particular. If there is anything we can do to help let us know. For now I propose you try and introduce this into the discussion at CSTD. Also push this concern in the post-2015 development agenda, as you have already started to do, and raise it in the IGF. APC is also exploring ways in which we can take this issue to the Human Rights Council. Anriette On 08/05/2014 12:46, Stuart Hamilton wrote: > Dear Colleagues > > I thought you might be interested in some of the problems libraries and archives experienced at the World Intellectual Property Organisation last week regarding access to digital content. It was quite a scene. > > http://www.ifla.org/node/8600 > > Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. > > Another document was also introduced by the US at this meeting which talks about how licensing is a principle of access to educational resources. For those of us who work in education/academia, I would suggest that there is a fair bit to worry about in this document. I'd be happy to share it as soon as I get an electronic copy. > > Kind regards, > > Stuart > > > Stuart Hamilton > Director of Policy and Advocacy > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > P.O. Box 95312 > 2509 CH The Hague > Netherlands > > 00 31 70 314 0884 > > Twitter: @ifladpa > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu May 8 10:36:04 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:36:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] EU rejects international solution to library and archive copyright problems; causes collapse of WIPO meeting In-Reply-To: <536B68ED.7010508@apc.org> References: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E01C5C7F3@MFP02.IFLA.lan> <536B68ED.7010508@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Stuart, all, Thanks very much for this update and very sorry to hear this news. Just to add to Anriette's last point about the HRC, the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights has identified "the impact of intellectual property regimes on the enjoyment of right to science and culture" as her issue of focus this year. She is conducting a public consultation in June, more info hereand attached. All the best, Deborah On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Stuart > > I am so sorry to hear this. I know how hard many of you have been working > in WIPO to find solutions to the many ways in which trends in copyright > enforcement is limiting access to knowledge in general, and the role of > libraries in providing information in particular. > > If there is anything we can do to help let us know. For now I propose you > try and introduce this into the discussion at CSTD. Also push this concern > in the post-2015 development agenda, as you have already started to do, and > raise it in the IGF. > > APC is also exploring ways in which we can take this issue to the Human > Rights Council. > > Anriette > > > > On 08/05/2014 12:46, Stuart Hamilton wrote: > > Dear Colleagues > > I thought you might be interested in some of the problems libraries and archives experienced at the World Intellectual Property Organisation last week regarding access to digital content. It was quite a scene. > http://www.ifla.org/node/8600 > > Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. > > Another document was also introduced by the US at this meeting which talks about how licensing is a principle of access to educational resources. For those of us who work in education/academia, I would suggest that there is a fair bit to worry about in this document. I'd be happy to share it as soon as I get an electronic copy. > > Kind regards, > > Stuart > > > Stuart Hamilton > Director of Policy and Advocacy > International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) > P.O. Box 95312 > 2509 CH The Hague > Netherlands > > 00 31 70 314 0884 > > Twitter: @ifladpa > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoteVerbaleEN.doc Type: application/msword Size: 114176 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 8 10:53:14 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:53:14 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_=5BNewsletter=5D_Digital_Rig?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?hts=3A_Latin_Am=E9rica_=26_The_Caribbean=2E_N=B010?= In-Reply-To: References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> Message-ID: <0E9F814E-19B9-4272-AB82-C418030DD7AA@mail.utoronto.ca> This is great, thank you! On 2014-05-07, at 11:42 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Sorry for the cross-posting. > You will find below the 10th issue of the newsletter Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean. The goal of this monthly publication is to produce news and analysis about Internet related policies and regulation in the LAC region. All articles are translated into English, Spanish and Portuguese. > > The newsletter is a joint project from Asociación Derechos Civiles (Argentina), Derechos Digitales (Chile), CTS/FGV (Brazil) and Fundación Karisma (Colombia). > > Website: http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > Subscribe: http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/suscripcion/ > > Best, > Marília > > Here you will find monthly analysis and information about the state of digital rights in Latin American and the Caribbean. > Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.. > > WELCOME > As a notable feature of this tenth edition we will have an interesting analysis of the recent report on Freedom of Expression and the Internet published by the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). In parallel, our brothers in Colombia tell us about the long-awaited presidential approval of the law on access to public information in the month of March while in Brazil the debate focuses on outlining an agenda that can shape a law on protection of personal data to ensure minimum standards of privacy protection. We will also find the controversial case of The Telecommunications Act in Mexico and debates about its process of discussion and an interesting reflection on the practical implications regarding the exemption of visa for Chilean citizens which stems from an agreement for exchanging information signed between the two governments. And of course, news, events and various recommended contents in "Digital Rights: Latin America and The Caribbean" Newsletter. Good reading! > > A Key Tool in the Struggle for a Free Internet > The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has published the report Freedom of Expression and the Internet. This report probably constitutes the main legal and constitutional tool to advance the struggle for a free and open Internet in the Americas. Read more. > > Is the automatic visa for entering the United States a cause for celebration? > > From April onwards it will be possible to travel as a tourist from Chile to the USA without having a visa. Although this agreement was considered by the former Chilean government as a triumph, the cost for granting this “privilege”, for the enjoyment of a minority, will be paid off with the personal data of all Chileans. Read more. > > The low involvement of civil society in the Telecommunications Act in Mexico > > The Telecommunications Act has been controversial not only because it damages freedom of expression on the Internet, but also because throughout the process of its discussion, the contributions of civil society have been minimal. What will happen to public interest in this legislation under these conditions? Read more. > Personal data: awaiting a text > > Very few people remember this, but in 2010 Brazil began the process of creating a specific law for the protection of personal data. Part of this lack of awareness can be attributed to the federal government itself, which for a long time stalled the initiative to create a new legal text, but it can also be due to the fact that our culture is permissive of the evasion of personal information. But the maturing of the Marco Civil da Internet into a law opens the door for privacy to occupy a central role in the country’s digital politics agenda. Read more. > Access to Information Act in Colombia, A Citizen Achievement > > On March 6, 2014 the President of Colombia approved the Access to Public Information Act. This norm contains a number of international standards on this fundamental right and stems from an initiative of the civil society alliance, More Information More Rights. Read more. > > Latest news in the region > > > LATAM: Office Of The Special Rapporteur Presents Its 2013 Annual Report with some proposals on Internet > More information > The approval of the Marco Civil da Internet > More information in Portuguese > Chile: Under secretary Pedro Huichalaf advocates net neutrality in NETmundial conference > More information in Spanish > Mexico will not block internet and telecommunications > More information in Spanish > U.S: United States created a "Cuban Twitter" to attack Castro's Government > More information in Spanish > Colombia: Second commission will follow up the PUMA system > More information in Spanish > Constitutional court repealed law that originated Pacific Alliance > More information in Spanish > > Events > > NETmundial: Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > 23rd & 24th April | São Paulo, Brazil > "Free and Secure Internet For All" > 28th & 29th April | Tallinn, Estonia. > FLISOL Cartagena > 10th May | Fundación Universitaria Tecnológico Comfenalco > FLISOL Bogotá > 10th May | IDRD > > Documents > Mobile internet: Challenges and opportunities for Civil Society > Carlos Cortés Castillo | Spanish > Intelectual property is theft > Strangers In A Tangled Wilderness | English > NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement > NETmundial | English > 2013 Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression > IACHR | English > This newsletter was made by: > > > Share this on Facebook | Twitt this | Forward this > > > Creative Commons BY-SA 2014 Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean, Some rights reserved. > > You are receiving this newsletter because you, or someone using this email address, subscribed to the Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean. > > Our mailing address is: > Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean > Diagonal Paraguay 450 piso 2 > Santiago 8330026 > Chile > > Add us to your address book > > > unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences > > > > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu May 8 10:54:38 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:54:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IANAtransition] Comments from Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafik Dammak Date: Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:51 AM Subject: [IANAtransition] Comments from Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group To: ianatransition at icann.org, Ergys Ramaj Hi, I am submitting the comment on "*Draft Proposal of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions*.", on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. Best Regards, Rafik Dammak Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Chair _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG comment on IANA transition process.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 90421 bytes Desc: not available URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu May 8 12:25:38 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 12:25:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? In-Reply-To: <57249483-7012-459E-A722-EE0134A451D5@consensus.pro> References: <9F9AF66A-8FBD-41B4-91B9-9B784BB0D0E8@consensus.pro> <57249483-7012-459E-A722-EE0134A451D5@consensus.pro> Message-ID: Hi Nick, all, On the WSIS modalities, I'm not sure the draft Lea shared has the support of either side yet, and it is certainly far from what the G77 has proposedand official G77 statements on the matter. Given the very divergent positions we're seeing "summit-level review is a must" v. some sort of special meeting on the sidelines of the GA after the MDG summit, I'm wondering if we should be prepared for the co-facilitators to conclude that there is no consensus... In terms of a plan b, to my knowledge one thing that's been sorely missing in this whole review process is an independent and comprehensive assessment of implementation of the WSIS. Facilitators (ITU/UNESCO) have produced their own reports, but that's not the same as an external (or even grassroots) assessment. The Secretary-General's reportalso attempts to do this, but IMHO it only scratches the surface. Could a comprehensive, independent, and grassroots review (perhaps by CSTD) be a way forward? I'm not sure this would do anything to break the deadlock over negotiations at the GA, but it could at least give us something productive to work with... Would love to hear others thoughts on this. I won't be at CSTD, but would be very grateful for updates from those attending :) Thanks Anne for starting this thread! All the best, Deborah On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Lea, > > Thanks for such a thoughtful note. On WGEC, I don't have a strong view one > way or another - this is one of an increasing number of processes here in > Geneva that are getting deadlocked that relate to IG. > > On the WSIS modalities - my understanding is that this is a narrowing of a > gap (what you have provided) but it is still not settled. I have to call > some friends in NY missions to talk to them. > > Amongst the other problems with a 2-day special event in December is that > it is after the MDG summit, rather than before, which could make it rather > more difficult to try and align the two processes so the next phase of WSIS > follow up actually is more development focussed, which it has not been. > > The other issue is that the draft doesn't really specify that there is any > follow-up process outside of CSTD, which could be good: providing that what > CSTD proposes to do is structured in a way we all think reasonable. Given > that the next CSTD is next week and the GA process is still not settled, > how is CSTD to decide upon how the review is to be conducted if it is not > sure to be conducting it? > > Hence the need for a Plan B (or even a Plan that is CSTD-centric, which > might - or might not - be plan a ;)) > > On 8 May 2014, at 12:15, Lea Kaspar wrote: > > Hi Nick, all, > > I might come to Geneva for a day on the 14th to see the follow up on the > WGEC discussions – the CSTD is to decide whether or not to extend the > mandate of the Group. > > While the WGEC extension is still up in the air, it is likely that at > least the gaps analysis that the WGEC Correspondence Group initiated is > taken forward through the CSTD Secretariat. A fact-based gaps analysis is > the right way to go IMO and could help bring about a more sober discussion > on IG reform. On the WGEC itself, it would be useful to discuss a CS > position on a potential extension. Some delegations in favour a > continuation see it as a strategy to keep the IG discussions out of the > upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary. However, it is unclear to me what value the > extension could yield beyond this potential strategic benefit (the current > deadlock seems unlikely to be broken even if they have 50 additional > meetings). On the other hand, if the Group is discontinued, a number of > sticky debates, including the one on roles and responsibilities, will > likely spill over into other fora, like the WSIS+10 review process. > > Which brings us to the status of the WSIS modalities discussion – Nick, > are you saying that there hasn’t been any movement towards consensus on the > most recent modalities draft (attached)? At the moment, the modalities in > the draft seem to revert back to the 2003/2005 WSIS process. Part of the > difficulty in NY is the inability to splinter the G77 and get countries > like Brazil to bring lessons and experiences from their national > environments (and from for instance NetMundial) to the table instead of > automatically siding with the positions pushed for by China and Russia. > This makes it difficult to get modalities that are more open and > participatory, which we as CS would presumably want. Perhaps one thing to > lobby for at the CSTD is to acknowledge the NetMundial outcomes in some > way? We have precedent for this in the most recent GA ICT4D Res > from December which had the following text: “*Welcoming* the > announcement by Brazil that the country will host the Global > Multi-stakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance, to be held in São Paulo > on 23 and 24 April 2014.” Just an idea. > > Not really an answer to what a plan B could be, sorry J > > I’d be interested to hear what others think. > > Best, > Lea > > *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro > ] > *Sent:* 08 May 2014 07:48 > *To:* Anne Jellema > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Sonia Jorge > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? > > I will be there, as IDEA (Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance), > which is an NGO that brings together companies and NGOs, so a bit of a > hybrid. I won't be there all day every day, but in and out, though I'll be > around all of Wednesday I'm sure. > > A question I would pose: given that negotiations in NY on the WSIS review > are stuck, what is the proposed plan B if it remains stuck? I've asked > various countries this question, and while they acknowledge that we need a > 'plan b' there isn't one. > -- > Regards, > > Nick > Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > email: nashton at consensus.pro > GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com > PGP: 6995293D > Fingerprint: 9794 3DC C 8F 27 9 BF8 3105 298 1 96 FA F 538 6995 293 D > Skype: nashtonhart > > “Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the > imagination and life to everything.” - Plato > > > > > > On 8 May 2014, at 08:38, Anne Jellema wrote: > > > Hi all > Are there any plans for a civil society pre-meeting before, or caucus > during, the upcoming CSTD meeting in Geneva? > My colleague Sonia will be there and we're keen to coordinate > interventions and lobbying. > Best > Anne > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Thu May 1 08:41:57 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 05:41:57 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: On May 1, 2014, at 5:26 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? JC - I am on the governance list as a resource to this community, and as such am available as you see fit. You might find that I have far more mundane views about the "Internet Governance" eco-system than my passion regarding the necessary coordination that must occur for working global Internet identifiers, but please feel free to ask any questions that you feel I may be able to assist with... Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Thu May 8 16:51:26 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 22:51:26 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? In-Reply-To: References: <9F9AF66A-8FBD-41B4-91B9-9B784BB0D0E8@consensus.pro> <57249483-7012-459E-A722-EE0134A451D5@consensus.pro> Message-ID: You’ve read my mind, and that of many others; having CSTD to the actual review was part of the original game plan but then the whole NY thing started. On 8 May 2014, at 18:25, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi Nick, all, > > On the WSIS modalities, I'm not sure the draft Lea shared has the support of either side yet, and it is certainly far from what the G77 has proposed and official G77 statements on the matter. Given the very divergent positions we're seeing "summit-level review is a must" v. some sort of special meeting on the sidelines of the GA after the MDG summit, I'm wondering if we should be prepared for the co-facilitators to conclude that there is no consensus... > > In terms of a plan b, to my knowledge one thing that's been sorely missing in this whole review process is an independent and comprehensive assessment of implementation of the WSIS. Facilitators (ITU/UNESCO) have produced their own reports, but that's not the same as an external (or even grassroots) assessment. The Secretary-General's report also attempts to do this, but IMHO it only scratches the surface. Could a comprehensive, independent, and grassroots review (perhaps by CSTD) be a way forward? I'm not sure this would do anything to break the deadlock over negotiations at the GA, but it could at least give us something productive to work with... Would love to hear others thoughts on this. > > I won't be at CSTD, but would be very grateful for updates from those attending :) Thanks Anne for starting this thread! > > All the best, > Deborah > > > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Lea, > > Thanks for such a thoughtful note. On WGEC, I don't have a strong view one way or another - this is one of an increasing number of processes here in Geneva that are getting deadlocked that relate to IG. > > On the WSIS modalities - my understanding is that this is a narrowing of a gap (what you have provided) but it is still not settled. I have to call some friends in NY missions to talk to them. > > Amongst the other problems with a 2-day special event in December is that it is after the MDG summit, rather than before, which could make it rather more difficult to try and align the two processes so the next phase of WSIS follow up actually is more development focussed, which it has not been. > > The other issue is that the draft doesn't really specify that there is any follow-up process outside of CSTD, which could be good: providing that what CSTD proposes to do is structured in a way we all think reasonable. Given that the next CSTD is next week and the GA process is still not settled, how is CSTD to decide upon how the review is to be conducted if it is not sure to be conducting it? > > Hence the need for a Plan B (or even a Plan that is CSTD-centric, which might - or might not - be plan a ;)) > > On 8 May 2014, at 12:15, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Hi Nick, all, >> >> I might come to Geneva for a day on the 14th to see the follow up on the WGEC discussions – the CSTD is to decide whether or not to extend the mandate of the Group. >> >> While the WGEC extension is still up in the air, it is likely that at least the gaps analysis that the WGEC Correspondence Group initiated is taken forward through the CSTD Secretariat. A fact-based gaps analysis is the right way to go IMO and could help bring about a more sober discussion on IG reform. On the WGEC itself, it would be useful to discuss a CS position on a potential extension. Some delegations in favour a continuation see it as a strategy to keep the IG discussions out of the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary. However, it is unclear to me what value the extension could yield beyond this potential strategic benefit (the current deadlock seems unlikely to be broken even if they have 50 additional meetings). On the other hand, if the Group is discontinued, a number of sticky debates, including the one on roles and responsibilities, will likely spill over into other fora, like the WSIS+10 review process. >> >> Which brings us to the status of the WSIS modalities discussion – Nick, are you saying that there hasn’t been any movement towards consensus on the most recent modalities draft (attached)? At the moment, the modalities in the draft seem to revert back to the 2003/2005 WSIS process. Part of the difficulty in NY is the inability to splinter the G77 and get countries like Brazil to bring lessons and experiences from their national environments (and from for instance NetMundial) to the table instead of automatically siding with the positions pushed for by China and Russia. This makes it difficult to get modalities that are more open and participatory, which we as CS would presumably want. Perhaps one thing to lobby for at the CSTD is to acknowledge the NetMundial outcomes in some way? We have precedent for this in the most recent GA ICT4D Res from December which had the following text: “Welcoming the announcement by Brazil that the country will host the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance, to be held in São Paulo on 23 and 24 April 2014.” Just an idea. >> >> Not really an answer to what a plan B could be, sorry J >> >> I’d be interested to hear what others think. >> >> Best, >> Lea >> >> From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> Sent: 08 May 2014 07:48 >> To: Anne Jellema >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Sonia Jorge >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? >> >> I will be there, as IDEA (Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance), which is an NGO that brings together companies and NGOs, so a bit of a hybrid. I won't be there all day every day, but in and out, though I'll be around all of Wednesday I'm sure. >> >> A question I would pose: given that negotiations in NY on the WSIS review are stuck, what is the proposed plan B if it remains stuck? I've asked various countries this question, and while they acknowledge that we need a 'plan b' there isn't one. >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Nick >> Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00 >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 >> email: nashton at consensus.pro >> GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com >> PGP: 6995293D >> Fingerprint: 9794 3DC C 8F 27 9 BF8 3105 298 1 96 FA F 538 6995 293 D >> Skype: nashtonhart >> >> “Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.” - Plato >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8 May 2014, at 08:38, Anne Jellema wrote: >> >> >> Hi all >> Are there any plans for a civil society pre-meeting before, or caucus during, the upcoming CSTD meeting in Geneva? >> My colleague Sonia will be there and we're keen to coordinate interventions and lobbying. >> Best >> Anne >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> CEO >> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >> @afjellema >> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu May 8 18:18:55 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 18:18:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Note on Best Bits procedures on statements Message-ID: Dear all, Since there's been some discussion lately about Best Bits statements (what constitutes a BB statement, how they're developed, etc.) on the behalf of the interim steering committee I'd like to direct you to the wiki draft procedures. These draft procedures are posted on the Best Bits website ( http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/) and are open to discussion/editing. They have been posted in this format since before the Best Bits Bali meeting, though admittedly we could do a better job of pointing people to them, which is why we're writing now :-) In reviewing these procedures in the current climate, it is evident that we should probably develop more specific guidance for statements or inputs developed in very time sensitive situations in response to a particular meeting/process. Agreed on procedures for the interplay between those participating actively in a particular process and the broader network could have helped to avoid some of the challenges we've faced post-NetMundial. Finally, please note that this is a general friendly reminder and not directed at a particular NetMundial statement or even limited to NetMundial. We can all do a better job at following these procedures and continuing to shape them to meet our needs. Please let us know if you have any questions/concerns (either on this thread or at steering at lists.bestbits.net) and fellow interim steering committee members, please jump in if I forgot or misrepresented anything. Producing Best Bits statements [RFC] - Statements are not issued by Best Bits but by individual endorsers, and public statements about the statement should be worded with care to avoid suggesting otherwise. - *In exceptional cases where a large proportion of participants are physically present or otherwise actively express their views about a statement, and it appears that it enjoys full consensus of those participants, they may resolve that it be issued as a statement “of the Best Bits coalition”.* - Anyone may propose posting a statement (eg. joint letter, submission) be posted to the Best Bits website. Any such proposal should be accompanied by either: - a proposed text, accompanied by a description of the process by which it was drafted and a proposed process and timetable for finalising and posting it for endorsement; or - a proposed process and timetable for drafting, finalising and posting the text for endorsement. - The process and timetable may vary depending on context and urgency, but in general: - the text should be finalised by a fluid working group that is open to civil society participants from the main Best Bits mailing list (but which might work on a separate mailing list, which could be closed); - the timescale for drafting the text should normally be at least 48 hours; - the draft text should normally be posted to the main Best Bits mailing list for comment at least another 48 hours before being posted to the website; - there should be an adequate balance between inclusiveness of the initial drafting process, and the finality of the text. (In other words, we would seldom agree to post a text that is final and that only a few groups from one part of the world drafted.) - Objections to the posting of a text for endorsement may be made at the stage of its initial proposal, or at a later stage when the draft text is posted for comment, and can be made both on strategic and on substantive grounds. Possible grounds for opposition include: - The statement is not on-topic for Best Bits. - Any proposed statement should not go against the Best Bits goals but should in fact further those. - The process and timetable are not realistic, or are not inclusive enough. - The process and timetable have not been complied with. - However, consensus is not required in order for a text to be posted. If significant opposition to the posting of the text has been voiced on the main list and cannot be resolved, the steering committee may make a final decision about whether or not to post the statement, in consultation with at least one proponent of the text and at least one opponent. All the best, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lea at gp-digital.org Thu May 8 18:33:52 2014 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 23:33:52 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? In-Reply-To: References: <9F9AF66A-8FBD-41B4-91B9-9B784BB0D0E8@consensus.pro> <57249483-7012-459E-A722-EE0134A451D5@consensus.pro> , Message-ID: +1 for an independent CSTD-led review with a clearly defined scope and outcomes. I'd argue that the same approach would be necessary (although possibly insufficient) to move the WGEC forward. In a way, deadlocks in NY and at the WGEC strengthen the argument that a fact-based approach is badly needed. Can anyone think of downsides to this approach or any major obstacles that would make it unfeasible? On Nick's point about CSTD deciding on what to do before the modalities are settled in NY - is this necessarily a spoiler? Couldn't the CSTD draw on its existing mandate to frame its role in the process? If this is something we could rally around, I'd be up for working on a more targeted strategy for next week's meeting. Lea ________________________________________ From: nashton at consensus.pro [nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: 08 May 2014 21:51 To: Deborah Brown Cc: Lea Kaspar; Anne Jellema; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Sonia Jorge Subject: Re: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? You’ve read my mind, and that of many others; having CSTD to the actual review was part of the original game plan but then the whole NY thing started. On 8 May 2014, at 18:25, Deborah Brown > wrote: Hi Nick, all, On the WSIS modalities, I'm not sure the draft Lea shared has the support of either side yet, and it is certainly far from what the G77 has proposed and official G77 statements on the matter. Given the very divergent positions we're seeing "summit-level review is a must" v. some sort of special meeting on the sidelines of the GA after the MDG summit, I'm wondering if we should be prepared for the co-facilitators to conclude that there is no consensus... In terms of a plan b, to my knowledge one thing that's been sorely missing in this whole review process is an independent and comprehensive assessment of implementation of the WSIS. Facilitators (ITU/UNESCO) have produced their own reports, but that's not the same as an external (or even grassroots) assessment. The Secretary-General's report also attempts to do this, but IMHO it only scratches the surface. Could a comprehensive, independent, and grassroots review (perhaps by CSTD) be a way forward? I'm not sure this would do anything to break the deadlock over negotiations at the GA, but it could at least give us something productive to work with... Would love to hear others thoughts on this. I won't be at CSTD, but would be very grateful for updates from those attending :) Thanks Anne for starting this thread! All the best, Deborah On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: Dear Lea, Thanks for such a thoughtful note. On WGEC, I don't have a strong view one way or another - this is one of an increasing number of processes here in Geneva that are getting deadlocked that relate to IG. On the WSIS modalities - my understanding is that this is a narrowing of a gap (what you have provided) but it is still not settled. I have to call some friends in NY missions to talk to them. Amongst the other problems with a 2-day special event in December is that it is after the MDG summit, rather than before, which could make it rather more difficult to try and align the two processes so the next phase of WSIS follow up actually is more development focussed, which it has not been. The other issue is that the draft doesn't really specify that there is any follow-up process outside of CSTD, which could be good: providing that what CSTD proposes to do is structured in a way we all think reasonable. Given that the next CSTD is next week and the GA process is still not settled, how is CSTD to decide upon how the review is to be conducted if it is not sure to be conducting it? Hence the need for a Plan B (or even a Plan that is CSTD-centric, which might - or might not - be plan a ;)) On 8 May 2014, at 12:15, Lea Kaspar > wrote: Hi Nick, all, I might come to Geneva for a day on the 14th to see the follow up on the WGEC discussions – the CSTD is to decide whether or not to extend the mandate of the Group. While the WGEC extension is still up in the air, it is likely that at least the gaps analysis that the WGEC Correspondence Group initiated is taken forward through the CSTD Secretariat. A fact-based gaps analysis is the right way to go IMO and could help bring about a more sober discussion on IG reform. On the WGEC itself, it would be useful to discuss a CS position on a potential extension. Some delegations in favour a continuation see it as a strategy to keep the IG discussions out of the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary. However, it is unclear to me what value the extension could yield beyond this potential strategic benefit (the current deadlock seems unlikely to be broken even if they have 50 additional meetings). On the other hand, if the Group is discontinued, a number of sticky debates, including the one on roles and responsibilities, will likely spill over into other fora, like the WSIS+10 review process. Which brings us to the status of the WSIS modalities discussion – Nick, are you saying that there hasn’t been any movement towards consensus on the most recent modalities draft (attached)? At the moment, the modalities in the draft seem to revert back to the 2003/2005 WSIS process. Part of the difficulty in NY is the inability to splinter the G77 and get countries like Brazil to bring lessons and experiences from their national environments (and from for instance NetMundial) to the table instead of automatically siding with the positions pushed for by China and Russia. This makes it difficult to get modalities that are more open and participatory, which we as CS would presumably want. Perhaps one thing to lobby for at the CSTD is to acknowledge the NetMundial outcomes in some way? We have precedent for this in the most recent GA ICT4D Res from December which had the following text: “Welcoming the announcement by Brazil that the country will host the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance, to be held in São Paulo on 23 and 24 April 2014.” Just an idea. Not really an answer to what a plan B could be, sorry ☺ I’d be interested to hear what others think. Best, Lea From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: 08 May 2014 07:48 To: Anne Jellema Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Sonia Jorge Subject: Re: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting? I will be there, as IDEA (Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance), which is an NGO that brings together companies and NGOs, so a bit of a hybrid. I won't be there all day every day, but in and out, though I'll be around all of Wednesday I'm sure. A question I would pose: given that negotiations in NY on the WSIS review are stuck, what is the proposed plan B if it remains stuck? I've asked various countries this question, and while they acknowledge that we need a 'plan b' there isn't one. -- Regards, Nick Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 email: nashton at consensus.pro GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com PGP: 6995293D Fingerprint: 9794 3DC C 8F 27 9 BF8 3105 298 1 96 FA F 538 6995 293 D Skype: nashtonhart “Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.” - Plato On 8 May 2014, at 08:38, Anne Jellema > wrote: Hi all Are there any plans for a civil society pre-meeting before, or caucus during, the upcoming CSTD meeting in Geneva? My colleague Sonia will be there and we're keen to coordinate interventions and lobbying. Best Anne -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 9 11:58:05 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 11:58:05 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] should BB submit coordinated comments? - Enhancing ICANN Accountability Message-ID: Enhancing ICANN Accountability 4 Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 6 May 2014 Comment Close Date: 27 May 2014 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 28 May 2014 Reply Close Date: 18 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement To Submit Your Comments (Forum) View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: - Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): As announced at ICANN's March 2014 Public Meeting in Singapore, ICANN is initiating a discussion on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. This discussion will look at how ICANN remains accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role. While related to the ongoing discussions around the IANA Stewardship Transition, this is a separate process, though the output of this process is expected to be completed on the same timeframe as the stewardship transition work. Current Status: ICANN is initiating the community discussion on enhancement of ICANN's accountability through the posting of a background document and questions for input. Next Steps: The responses received will be compiled and analyzed. Prior to ICANN's June 2014 Public Meeting in London, ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be requested to start identifying Working Group participants, so that the work can start in earnest at ICANN 50 after community input is received. Staff Contact: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President on Strategy Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: On March 14, 2014, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its stewardship over key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. NTIA asked ICANN, as the IANA functions contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS, to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal for the transition. During discussions around the IANA stewardship transition, the community has also raised the broader topic of the impact of the transition on ICANN accountability. While the community develops a proposal for the transition of NTIA's stewardship role, it is important that the community also address the separate – but interdependent and interrelated – issue of ICANN's accountability. As a result, ICANN is launching a separate process, the scope of which is to look at ICANN remaining accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with regard toICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role, such as the renewal process of the IANAFunctions Contract. This second process will examine from an organizational perspective how ICANN's broader accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government. This includes looking at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation of Commitments. This process is additive, not a duplication of any of the reviews called for under the Affirmation of Commitments. This Accountability Process is envisioned to be coordinated by the ICANN Accountability Working Group, comprised of community members as well subject-matter experts in a range of areas, including: - Internet Technical Operations - International Organizational Reviews - Global Accountability Tools and Metrics - Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanism - Internet Consumer Protection - Economics (Marketplace and Competition) - Global Ethics Frameworks - Operational, Finance and Process - Board Governance - Transparency - Risk Management The Enhancing ICANN Accountability page sets out the detail of the proposed terms of reference for the process as well as setting forth questions designed to provide input to the ICANN Accountability Working Group. For ease of reference, the questions posed are: - What issues does the community identify as being core to strengthening ICANN's overall accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? - What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working Group's mandate? - Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's accountability and so, how? - What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is meeting its accountability commitments? - Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments? - What additional comments would you like to share that could be of use to the ICANNAccountability Working Group? As the public comment period is underway, ICANN will be reaching out to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees regarding the identification of Working Group members. ICANN anticipates that the Working Group will commence its work, including consideration of community input, during ICANN 50 in June 2014. It's expected that sub-working groups on specialized subject areas will be useful and open to all. Section II: Background: The Enhancing ICANN Accountability page sets forth detail on the community consultation that led to the creation of this ICANN Accountability Process, as well as an inventory of ICANN's current accountability efforts. Section III: Document and Resource Links: Community input is sought on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability proposal. Further background on the IANA Stewardship Transition is available at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition. Section IV: Additional Information: N/A -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Sat May 10 10:07:32 2014 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz, PhD) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 10:07:32 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Requesting_your_participation_in_a_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?research_study_on_=B3Capacity-building_for_civil_society-o?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?riented_Internet-related_Policy_Advocacy=B2?= Message-ID: Dear Best Bits Colleagues, Greetings from Montreal, and I hope this email finds you all well, especially after the recent meetings at NetMundial! Thank you for making remote participation possible for those of us who could not attend. As some of you who attended the BB Bali meeting last year may already be aware, I am researching the challenges of strengthening civil society capacity, particularly in the global south, for interventions on Internet policy issues at both national and international levels. This research is being supported by a grant from the Canadian government (the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC) titled ³Rendering Visible the Infrastructure of Media Policy Advocacy Practice² (see http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/results-resultats/2013/IDG_2013_EF.pdf). I would very much like to feature the BestBits community as one of my case studies related to capacity building for public interest policy advocacy work. Research questions for this case study include the following: What factors both strengthen but also weaken civil society policy advocacy capacity at national and global governance levels? What role does BB play in enhancing/enabling/strengthening civil society capacity for engagement in Internet-related policy advocacy work in national as well as international debates? What types of capacity building assistance are most needed and what challenges have BB members experienced obtaining these forms of assistance? Intended Beneficiaries of this research: The intended non-academic audience for the results of this research includes the BestBits community itself, as well as the various donors currently supporting, or considering supporting, this community of practice. Academic audiences include students and scholars in the field of Internet governance, civil society studies, and digital rights. Research findings for this audience will be published in scholarly journals yet to be determined, but the following will most likely be approached: http://gmc.sagepub.com/, http://www.palgrave-journals.com/iga/index.html, http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/journal/11266, http://www.interfacejournal.net/, and http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcis20. Other audiences include those who follow internet-related issues, but who do not know about the largely invisible work that civil society organizations are doing on their behalf. Most likely, this will be in the form of blog posts on BB community member websites, if invited. Research Activities: Archival research and interviews (email and skype) are currently underway on the origins and work of BestBits since its formation about three years ago. Depending on funding which has yet to be obtained, research also includes observations of the BestBits community at one or more of its global convenings. Other research activities involve conducting literature searches on capacity building best practices and challenges, creating an event database of BestBits work so far, and collecting related artifacts such as grant proposals, partnership agreements, meeting and event notes and documents, as well as BestBits interventions in policy debates. Your participation: If you would like to participate in this research project, kindly send me a private email (offlist) to becky.lentz at mcgill.ca stating that you would like to receive our email survey. You will also receive a consent form allowing me permission to use the information you provide for research purposes. The email survey would take about 20 minutes of your time. Followup Skype interviews may be requested based on answers to the survey. Thank you for your consideration, Becky Lentz -------- Becky Lentz, PhD Assistant Professor of Communication Studies Department of Art History/Communication Studies McGill University 853 Sherbrooke Street West, Arts Building, W-265 Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0G5 (o) 514.398.4995 Undergraduate Program Director for the Minor in Communication Studies: http://www.mcgill.ca/ahcs/undergraduate/ugradcs Resident Faculty Fellow at the Institute for the Public Life of Arts and Ideas: http://www.mcgill.ca/iplai/people/resident-faculty-fellows/introducing-2014- 2016-fellows Faculty liaison for McGill student chapter of Openmedia.ca: http://mcgi45.wix.com/openmediamcgill From: Marilia Maciel Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:18 PM To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: Untitled Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance > Hi Andrew and all, > > After reading the document I was willing to send a more carefully written > comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts informally now than to > hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message. > > First of all, this is a very good and useful document. You managed to give the > summary a good flow and you provide both an overview of inputs from > respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed them (which are also > useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. > > - It is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of power, > insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases for > governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that although we > support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been > "lived" and implemented is not what we wished for. This is important to > emphasize, because some analysis that have been produced recently argue that > non-gov actors were all univocally united around MS all along. In fact, I > think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a long > time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inclusion > should be the main ones guiding the process of reform. > > - It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just identify the > more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the first option is > correct... > > - I think that some of the proposals of "distributed governance" that you > mapped overlook some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC produce > recommendations and send them to other organizations: > a) would they be obliged to take this issue on their agenda?; > b) If they do take it, what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there is > no weight, would we be giving an additional incentive to, for instance, WIPO, > to negotiate text about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the > subject would not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does this > differentiate governance of the internet to traditional international regimes? > c) Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to MIPC/MIPOC > to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? > d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving the > IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a > renewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget the > drama before Bali). > e) Even if the IGF continues, the IGF needs resources. There is little chance > to produce good, focused policy-oriented outcomes without a very, very boosted > and dedicated staff and people who understand of methodologies to deal with > large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I > did, that the IGF will not receive additional resources from the UN. The UN > did not want to pay more and the business and the technical community were > alligned against UN public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are > basing our model of improved governance on the existence of enough voluntary > funding to the IGF? > f) The option to harbor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not > sufficiently discussed in the document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and > the fact that outcomes from the coordinating body under CSTD could move up to > ECOSOC and GA, I would look into that more carefully > > - I don't understand why power grabs were a concern on the UN Committee model, > but not so much on distributed models. Less clear processes are very prone to > power grabs, even to more opaque (and harder to identify and fight) ones. With > that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your argument that > self-forming MS processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and > resources. > > - The idea of a UN committee model does not seem to exclude the possibility to > create ad-hoc MS working groups as necessary, so maybe the argument that it > would not have expertise to deal with the diversity of internet issues could > be more carefully explained. > > That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts and hoping we can > continue the discussions. > Thanks again for the good start > Marília > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Andrew Puddephatt > wrote: >> Hi everyone >> >> From: Marianne Franklin >> Date: Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:57 >> To: andrew Puddephatt , "parminder at itforchange.net" >> , "" >> >> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG >> governance >> >> >> Dear Andrew and all >> >> I¹m heading offline for a week now and have had little substantive response >> to the document below. If there are any comments could you send them through >> to me by February 6th ­ after that we¹ll consult about turning this into a >> submission in time for the deadline of March 1st. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> >>> Executive Director >>> >>> Development House, 56­64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>> >>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 >>> (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: >>> andrewpuddephatt >>> gp-digital.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at >>>> the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November. Taking >>>> advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, >>>> we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and >>>> Internet Democracy Project. The results of our conversation are set out >>>> below and in a word attachment. Drawing upon the responses to the survey >>>> and other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> · The case for reform >>>> >>>> >>>> · Possible criteria for reforming IG governance >>>> >>>> >>>> · An evaluation of the different proposals for reform >>>> >>>> >>>> · Preliminary conclusions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set >>>> out for an IG system, that a dispersed system of governance has more >>>> benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of governance. We go on >>>> to conclude in favour of maintaining a distributed governance regime, but >>>> that it should be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new >>>> coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific >>>> multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed >>>> that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more >>>> research is needed about the options and risks here. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from >>>> then list. To simplify things I suggest that people submit three >>>> categories of comments. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach put >>>> forward. I suggest that they develop their own approach find their own >>>> collaborators and work on their own ideas. May a hundred flowers bloom. >>>> >>>> 2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which >>>> require further discussion. I will then collect these put together an >>>> online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a >>>> structured fashion. >>>> >>>> 3. Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing >>>> etc. but who can live with the differences. These I will collect and try >>>> and resolve through e-mail conversation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We¹ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it would >>>> be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were represented. And >>>> although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by March 1st, this >>>> position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums. If you have >>>> other suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me >>>> know. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Puddephatt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Internet Governance: proposals for reform >>>> >>>> ***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy >>>> Project*** >>>> >>>> In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for internet >>>> governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian >>>> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and >>>> other relevant forums ­ Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated >>>> a small group of civil society organisations. >>>> >>>> In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group >>>> worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey >>>> responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the >>>> IG institutional framework that the contributors were aware of: >>>> >>>> 1. What is the case for reform of IG and do we have a common >>>> understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are? >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. If there is a case for reform what are the criteria for a reformed >>>> system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic commitment to >>>> human rights and social justice? >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. How do the various proposals for reform stack up against these >>>> criteria ­ what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks >>>> and benefits. >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what are >>>> those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. >>>> Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the >>>> group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the >>>> approach? >>>> >>>> >>>> The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and discussion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) Case for reform >>>> >>>> Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the >>>> following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: >>>> >>>> · There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, >>>> particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised. >>>> >>>> >>>> · There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and >>>> language. >>>> >>>> >>>> · Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have >>>> not been adequately tackled. >>>> >>>> >>>> · The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its >>>> mandate. >>>> >>>> >>>> · Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates >>>> difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be >>>> increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change. >>>> >>>> >>>> · There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This >>>> also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human >>>> rights/public interest decisions. >>>> >>>> >>>> · There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or >>>> global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This >>>> means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical >>>> responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the >>>> internet. >>>> >>>> >>>> · Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many >>>> governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to >>>> tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently >>>> transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global. >>>> >>>> >>>> · Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of ³state >>>> sovereignty² on the global internet. >>>> >>>> >>>> · There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made >>>> ­ there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them. >>>> >>>> >>>> · The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed >>>> from the beginning as an international medium, and its international >>>> character and the benefits of free expression and access to information >>>> that it brings need to be preserved. >>>> >>>> >>>> · There is a unique property to the internet that requires global >>>> cooperation and coordination to make it effective. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) Criteria for Internet Governance >>>> >>>> NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second >>>> Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested baseline >>>> for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the >>>> outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to unite around a core >>>> set of principles. >>>> >>>> After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were an >>>> essential element of any democratic international governance system. The >>>> aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international >>>> governance rather than looking for criteria that only applied to the >>>> internet ­ in order to avoid the pitfalls of ³internet exceptionalism². >>>> Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally very weak lines of >>>> accountability between a government's positions on the international stage >>>> and its electorate back at home, open international spaces with broad-based >>>> participation can be important opportunities for bringing international >>>> decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the >>>> group found that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, >>>> could have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond >>>> the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are aspirational >>>> and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. >>>> Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for assessing >>>> any proposed changes. >>>> >>>> The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the >>>> governance of complex global phenomena: >>>> >>>> a) Processes >>>> >>>> · Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone >>>> to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; >>>> >>>> >>>> · Accountable: internal and external accountability process should >>>> exist, including a way of challenging decisions; >>>> >>>> >>>> · Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver >>>> >>>> >>>> · Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and >>>> developments in the field. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> b) Participation >>>> >>>> · Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to >>>> many. >>>> >>>> >>>> · All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at >>>> good decisions/agreements >>>> >>>> >>>> · Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions >>>> >>>> >>>> · Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be >>>> able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that >>>> this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. >>>> But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative >>>> supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> c) Underlying Values >>>> >>>> · Human rights values should be at the core of any governance >>>> process and outcomes. >>>> >>>> >>>> · Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding >>>> of the internet as a global public good). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform >>>> >>>> The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current >>>> system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models >>>> analysed below is not exhaustive. Please forgive the brevity and crudeness >>>> of the model titles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More >>>> details about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end >>>> of the document. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> UN Committee Model >>>> >>>> Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of >>>> 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of different >>>> stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global >>>> internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the technical >>>> bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception that >>>> oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical >>>> Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by >>>> governments. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm) >>>> >>>> >>>> A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices >>>> of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, >>>> private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and >>>> observers from international organisations). The MIPC would take up issues >>>> forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt >>>> to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The >>>> recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the development of >>>> binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, which would >>>> generally be at the national level. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang >>>> Kleinwachter) >>>> >>>> >>>> A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the >>>> IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. >>>> The MIPOC would be a coordinating body ­ identifying issues raised at the >>>> IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, >>>> either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a >>>> technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could >>>> be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific >>>> issues by rough consensus. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet >>>> Democracy Project) >>>> >>>> >>>> This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC >>>> model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD >>>> instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a >>>> clearing house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, >>>> the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which >>>> pre-existing institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. >>>> Once an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then >>>> be responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to >>>> respond to that issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by Internet >>>> & Jurisdiction Project) >>>> >>>> >>>> Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific >>>> internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical >>>> standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For >>>> higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve >>>> experts and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the >>>> Internet & Jurisdiction Project¹s model appears to be more of a Œproof of >>>> concept¹ that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the models >>>> outlined above. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the >>>> model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling >>>> anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. >>>> It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with >>>> detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate >>>> seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potential clashes >>>> with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN >>>> Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of >>>> similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political >>>> interests. As a single body with oversight ­ potentially ­ of all public >>>> policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that >>>> the body would not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions >>>> across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it >>>> was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed group of >>>> people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy issues. >>>> The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create risks that >>>> those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape >>>> them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of >>>> a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged >>>> meeting just a few times per year. >>>> >>>> Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centralisation, >>>> suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of >>>> these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role >>>> as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and for each >>>> issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet >>>> community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for >>>> enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level >>>> discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at >>>> the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths >>>> of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the >>>> wider internet community. There were, however, concerns given that the IGF >>>> hasn¹t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. For >>>> example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from >>>> IGF discussions ­ this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, >>>> improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. >>>> >>>> A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly >>>> supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the >>>> current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the >>>> coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group. The advantage >>>> of these models was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater >>>> clarity (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues >>>> are addressed. >>>> >>>> In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed approach >>>> where many institutions are involved in different aspects of >>>> internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the >>>> concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate issues >>>> for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against >>>> power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised >>>> approach in the UN Committee model ­ and to a lesser extent Jeremy¹s MIPC >>>> model. >>>> >>>> A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in >>>> expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more >>>> dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. >>>> However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was seen >>>> to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, self-forming >>>> multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage those without power >>>> and resources. >>>> >>>> There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed >>>> models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN >>>> Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making >>>> it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative ways >>>> of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be >>>> a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4) Existing Institutions >>>> >>>> The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the current >>>> structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an extent >>>> that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently >>>> addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the ideas above >>>> considering the overall governance regime. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IGF >>>> >>>> The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of sources >>>> below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms were >>>> identified: >>>> >>>> · Providing stronger leadership; >>>> >>>> >>>> · A better funded and supported secretariat; >>>> >>>> >>>> · Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and >>>> all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system; >>>> >>>> >>>> · Clearing house function; >>>> >>>> >>>> · More output-orientated; >>>> >>>> >>>> · Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of >>>> national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for issues >>>> of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way to >>>> global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels; >>>> >>>> >>>> · Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south >>>> governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all >>>> institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium >>>> businesses); >>>> >>>> >>>> · Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ICANN >>>> >>>> In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including >>>> removing the privilege of the US which was seen as important though >>>> largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve both >>>> location and structure. However, the group felt that it was necessary to >>>> examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing so in >>>> order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. >>>> Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 5) Preliminary conclusions >>>> >>>> From the response to the survey and by analysing various alternative models >>>> using the criteria set out above, there seems to be potential to come to a >>>> rough consensus combining a number of ideas commanding broad support among >>>> civil society. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dispersed vs. centralised >>>> >>>> A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more >>>> appropriate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise >>>> could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to >>>> navigate but a dispersed system had fewer risks for political or corporate >>>> capture and enabled issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to >>>> engage on specific issues. On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both >>>> approaches weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Broad participation & role of reformed IGF >>>> >>>> Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad >>>> as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an >>>> important space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act >>>> as a central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related >>>> public policies within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a >>>> stronger leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between >>>> the IGF and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link >>>> to national and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening >>>> participation and reforming the MAG. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A new co-ordinating function >>>> >>>> There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating >>>> function to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related >>>> policy making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating >>>> group should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that >>>> group should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A >>>> new coordinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the >>>> form, location and processes by which that function is exercised. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups >>>> >>>> When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad >>>> agreement that these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder >>>> working groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn¹t a >>>> decision yet on where/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by >>>> different institutions with mandate over different issues, by a working >>>> group tied to CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision >>>> making there was broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by >>>> consensus with the option to shift to another process where necessary and >>>> appropriate (including multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). New >>>> internet policy issues should be dealt with through ad hoc >>>> multi-stakeholder working groups which are issue specific. More discussion >>>> is needed about the form, location and processes of those multi-stakeholder >>>> working groups. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ICANN reform >>>> >>>> A reformed ICANN ­ details to be worked on further. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 6) List of Sources >>>> >>>> http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralise >>>> d-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ >>>> >>> ed-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/> >>>> >>>> http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/ >>>> >>>> http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in >>>> %20IG%20200412.pdf >>>> >>> n%20IG%20200412.pdf> >>>> >>>> http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-free >>>> ing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true >>>> >>> eing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true> >>>> >>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/ >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-ove >>>> rsight-of-icann/ >>>> >>> ersight-of-icann/> >>>> >>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group- >>>> on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg >>>> >>> -on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg> >>>> >>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PD >>>> F%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf >>>> >>> DF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf> >>>> >>>> http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> >>>> Executive Director >>>> >>>> Development House, 56­64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>>> >>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 >>>> (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: >>>> andrewpuddephatt >>>> gp-digital.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this > message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To > unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun May 11 04:46:02 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:46:02 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] PINGO References: <8a81193b2802c8d10cdc029bf12697fcca2.20140505165551@mail127.us2.mcsv.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642276@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642297@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, here is my view how to deal with the section on Internet Principles of the NetMundial Sai Paulo Declaration. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140510_pingo_net_mundial_adopts_principles_on_internet_governance/ wolfgang From anriette at apc.org Sun May 11 13:52:48 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 19:52:48 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Letter_to_French_President_Hollande_on_Human?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Rights_Violations_in_Azerbaijan_-__Courrier_de_la_soci=C3=A9t?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=A9_civile_d=E2=80=99Azerba=C3=AFdjan_au_Pr=C3=A9sident_de_l?= =?UTF-8?Q?a_R=C3=A9publique_fran=C3=A7aise?= In-Reply-To: <0.1.1F.EDE.1CF6C4FE8C9D040.0@drone193.ral.icpbounce.com> References: <0.1.1F.EDE.1CF6C4FE8C9D040.0@drone193.ral.icpbounce.com> Message-ID: <536FB8F0.7020506@apc.org> Dear all Particularly for those of you in France, it would be good to make sure this letter gets as much exposure as possible. Anriette Mr. François Hollande President of the Republic of France Palais de l’Élysée /Baku, Azerbaijan/ /May 10, 2014/ *Azerbaijan’s Civil Society Letter to French President Hollande on Human Rights Violations in Azerbaijan* Mr. President: In advance of the upcoming visit to Baku we write to request that human rights form a significant part of your talks with President Aliyev. We specifically call on you to make unmistakably clear that progress in strengthening France-Azerbaijan economic and security ties will not be possible without measurable progress to address continuing harassment and persecution of human rights defenders, journalists and political activists in Azerbaijan and systematic violations of freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. Azerbaijan’s chairmanship of he Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers will start in less than a week from now. As one of the Council of Europe’s founding-nations, France works towards strengthening the Council’s role, particularly in its unique core issues: promoting human rights, the rule of law and democracy. We therefore expect your country to play more active role in terms of promotion of human rights in Azerbaijan- officially a European country, as far as the Council of Europe is concerned – but unrecognizable as such from a human rights perspective. Since beginning of 2013 when Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe rejected a resolution on political prisoners in Azerbaijan, the authorities have put behind bars at least 30 Azerbaijani civil society activists, journalists and human rights defenders. In recent weeks there has been a marked escalation in the crackdown on those advocating human rights and political reform in Azerbaijan, with two prominent civil society figures, *Rauf Mirkadirov* and *Leyla Yunus, chevalier of **Légion d'honneur* amongst those targeted in a spate of arrests and detentions. On 6 May Baku court ruled for the convictions of *eight leading activists with N!DA Youth Movement* for their role in promoting pro-democracy demonstrations, despite the fact that their offenses consisted solely of peacefully advocating political change. Investigations led by human rights NGOs and diplomatic community into the trials of these and other individuals lead us to share the concern expressed by the different institutions and mandate holders including Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner about the lack of fairness and due process afforded to the defendants and the especially harsh sentences handed down, including lengthy jail sentences for prominent human rights defenders, journalists as well as political opposition leaders such *as Avaz Zeynalli, Hilal Mammadov, Tofig Yagublu and Ilgar Mammadov.* In the lead up to the Council’s chairmanship, there has been *a rise in harassment of Civil Society Organizations (CSO)* in Azerbaijan. Official intimidation tactics have included the levying of heavy fines on CSOs for petty administrative lapses; the wave of inspections of Azerbaijani non-governmental organizations by the country's law enforcement and tax authorities; the publication of defamatory articles against civil society members in the press; denial of permission to civil society groups to hold meetings in public spaces; and so on. The defeat in January 2013 of a key resolution at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on political prisoners in Azerbaijan, combined with the failure of top European Union officials to prioritize human rights during their talks with President Aliyev– left the government feeling confident, while Azerbaijani civil society became further disillusioned with these bodies. In this context, France as founding member of the Council of Europe, have a responsibility to address human rights violations in Azerbaijan, and make recommendations to the government of Azerbaijan to bring about an improvement in the human rights situation in the country. We urge you and the French government to raise these issues at the highest levels with the Azerbaijani authorities, and to criticize publicly the repression of free speech and free association, the harassment of human rights defenders, and to call for the immediate release of the detained activists. We thank you for your consideration and we wish you a productive meeting. Sincerely, Undersigned: /*Akif Gurbanov*/ - Democratic Initiatives Institute /*Alovsat Aliyev */- Azerbaijan Migration Center /*Aytekin Imranova */- Islam, Democracy and Human Rights Center /*Aynur Imranova */- Support for Development of Democracy and Media /*Arzu Abdullayeva */- Helsinki Citizens Assembly - Azerbaijan /*Elchin Abdullayev*/ - Democratic Institutions and Human Rights /*Elshan Hasanov */- Azerbaijan Without Political Prisoners /*Emin Huseynov*/ - Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety /*Fuad Hasanov */- Democracy Monitor /*GulnaraAkhundova */- lawyer /*Gubad Ibadoglu */- Public Initiatives Center /*Gunay Ismayilova*/ - lawyer /*JasurMammadov*/ - Doctrine Journalists’ Military Research Center /*Intigam Aliyev*/ - Legal Education Society /*Idrak Abbasov*/ - Institute of Extreme Journalism /*Leila Alieva*/ - Center for National and International Studies /*Letafet Malikova*/ - Regional Human Rights and Education /*Mahammad Talibli */- Economic Innovation Center /*Mammadhasan Hasanov*/ - Landmine Victims Association /*Mirvari Gahramanli*/ - Center for the Protection of Oil workers' Rights */Rasul Jafarov/* - Legal Protection and Awareness Society /*Razi Nurullayev */- "Region" International Analytical Center /*Rashid Hacili*/ - Media Rights Institute /*Ogtay Gulaliyev */- Society for Democratic Reforms */Samir Kazimli/* - Alliance for Protection of Political Freedoms /*ShahinHajiyev*/ - Najaf Najafov Fund *Sevil Yuzbashova* - Eco-World /*Ulvi Hasanli*/, NIDA Civic Movement /*Zaur Akbar*/ - Youth Club */Zohrab Ismayil/* - Assistance to Free Economy *Azerbaïdjan*Monsieur François Hollande Président de la République française Palais de l’Élysée /Bakou, Azerbaïdjan/ le 10 mai 2014 *Courrier de la société civile d’Azerbaïdjan au Président de la République française François Hollande concernant les violations des droits de l’homme en Azerbaïdjan* Monsieur le Président, En vue de votre visite à Bakou, nous vous écrivons pour vous présenter notre demande que le respect des droits de l’homme figure comme une partie significative de vos discussions avec le Président Aliyev. Nous vous adressons en particulier à vous pour que vous fassiez entendre clairement que le processus de rapprochement sur les questions économiques et de sécurité entre la France et l’Azerbaïdjan serait impossible sans des progrès mesurables en matière de harcèlement et persécution de défenseurs des droits de l’homme, de journalistes et d’activistes politiques en Azerbaïdjan, ainsi que de violations systématiques des droits à la liberté d’expression, d’association et d’assemblée pacifique. La présidence par l’Azerbaïdjan du Comité des ministres du Conseil de l’Europe va débuter dans moins d’une semaine. En tant qu’un des membres fondateurs du Conseil de l’Europe, la France s’engage à renforcer l’institution, en particulier sur ses questions les plus fondamentales : promotion des droits de l’homme, de l’État de droit et de la démocratie. Nous nous attendons dès lors à ce que la France joue un rôle plus important en matière de promotion des droits de l’homme en Azerbaïdjan – officiellement un pays européen, en tant que membre du Conseil de l’Europe, mais méconnaissable dans la famille européenne quand il est question de droits de l’homme. Depuis le début de l’année 2013, lorsque l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe rejeta la résolution sur les prisonniers politiques en Azerbaïdjan, les autorités ont arrêtés au moins 30 activistes de la société civile d’Azerbaïdjan, des journalistes et des défenseurs des droits de l’homme. Ces dernières semaines ont été marquées par une escalade de la répression contre ceux qui défendent les droits de l’homme et prônent des réformes politiques en Azerbaïdjan, avec deux personnalités de la société civiles visées dans la série d’arrestations et de détentions, Rauf Mirkadirov et Leyla Yunus, chevalier de la Légion d’honneur. Le 6 mai 2014, le tribunal de Baku a condamné huit militants du mouvement de jeunes N!DA, dû à leur rôle dans la promotion de manifestations en faveur de la démocratie, en dépit du fait que leurs délits n’est été que de militer pacifiquement pour un changement politique. Les observations menées par des organisations de défense des droits de l’homme et la communauté diplomatiques dans les audiences de ces personnes, et d’autres, nous mènent à partager les préoccupations exprimées par différentes institutions et titulaires de mandat, dont le Commissaire des droits de l’homme du Conseil de l’Europe, sur le manque d’équité et des violations des droits de la défense, ainsi que des condamnations particulièrement dures, dont de longues sentences d’emprisonnement pour des défenseurs des droits de l’homme réputés, des journalistes et des dirigeants de l’opposition politique, tels que *Avaz Zeynalli, Hilal Mammadov, Tofig Yagublu et Ilgar Mammadov.* En préparation de sa présidence du Conseil de l’Europe, l’Azerbaïdjan a connu un accroissement du harcèlement de la société civile. Les stratégies d’intimidation officielles ont notamment été la perception de lourdes amendes contre les organisations de la société civile pour des fautes administratives mineures, une vague d’inspection d’organisation Azerbaïdjanaises par la police et les autorités fiscales, la publication d’articles diffamatoires contre des personnalités de la société civile, ainsi que le refus pour les groupes de la société civile d’organiser des réunion dans des espaces publics. La défaite en janvier 2013 de la résolution clef à l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe sur les prisonniers politiques en Azerbaïdjan, allant de pair avec le manque de volonté de dirigeants de l’Union européenne de mettre la priorité sur les questions des droits de l’homme dans leurs discussions avec le Président Aliyev, ont eu pour conséquence de renforcer la confiance du gouvernement en son pouvoir, alors que la société civile en Azerbaïdjan est devenue plus déçue encore envers ces institutions. Dans ce contexte, la France en tant que membre fondateur du Conseil de l’Europe a la responsabilité d’adresser les violations des droits de l’homme en Azerbaïdjan et de présenter au gouvernement de la République d’Azerbaïdjan des recommandations pour améliorer la situation des droits de l’homme dans le pays. Nous vous prions instamment Monsieur le Président, ainsi que votre gouvernement, de soulever ces questions avec les plus hautes autorités d’Azerbaïdjan, et de critiquer publiquement la répression de la liberté d’expression et de la liberté d’association, le harcèlement de défenseurs des droits de l’homme et d’appeler à ce que les activistes détenus soient libérés immédiatement. Vous remerciant de l’attention que vous porterez à notre message et vous souhaitant un séjour productif, soyez assuré, Monsieur le Président, de notre plus haute considération. Soussigné: /*Akif Gurbanov*/ - Initiatives démocratiques Institut /*Alovsat Aliyev */- Azerbaïdjan Centre de migration /*Aytekin Imranova*/ - Islam, la démocratie et le Centre des Droits Humains /*Aynur Imranova*/ - Appui au développement de la démocratie et des médias /*Arzu Abdullayeva */- Helsinki Citizens Assembly - Azerbaïdjan /*Elchine Abdullayev*/- Institutions démocratiques et des droits de l'homme /*Elshan Hasanov*/ - Azerbaïdjan Sans prisonniers politiques /*Emin Huseynov */- Institut pour la liberté et la sécurité des reporters /*Fuad Hasanov */- Démocratie Moniteur /*Gulnara Akhundova*/ - avocat /*Gubad Ibadoglu*/ - Initiatives publiques Centre /*Gunay Ismayilova */- avocat /*JasurMammadov*/ - "Doctrine" Centre de recherche militaire /*Intigam Aliyev*/ - Legal Education Society /*Idrâk Abbasov*/ - Institut de journalisme extrême /*Leila Alieva*/ - Centre d'études nationales et internationales /*Letafet Malikova */- régionaux des droits de l'homme et de l'éducation /*Mahammad Talibli */- Centre d'innovation économique /*Mammadhasan Hasanov */- victimes de mines antipersonnel Association /*Mirvari Gahramanli*/ - Centre pour la protection des droits des travailleurs du pétrole /*Rasul Jafarov */- protection juridique et de la Société de sensibilisation /*Razi Nurullayev */- "Région" Centre international d'analyse /*Rashid Hacili */- Institut des droits médias /*Ogtay Gulaliyev */- Société pour la poursuite des réformes démocratiques /*Samir Kazimli */- Alliance pour la protection des libertés politiques /*ShahinHajiyev*/ - Fonds Najafov Najaf /*SevilYuzbashova */- Eco World /*Ulvi Hasanli*/- Mouvement civique NIDA /*Zaur Akbar */- Youth Club /*Zohrab Ismail */- Assistance à l'économie libre This message was sent to anriette at apc.org from: @IRFS_Azerbaijan | R.Behbudov 8, apt 85/86 | Baku, Sabael AZ1000, Azerbaijan Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! Update Profile | Forward This Message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Tue May 13 10:48:09 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:48:09 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [] Fwd: BCP 188, RFC 7258 on Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack In-Reply-To: <5371DF0C.7000409@cs.tcd.ie> References: <5371DF0C.7000409@cs.tcd.ie> Message-ID: <537230A9.9030705@acm.org> fyi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [perpass] Fwd: BCP 188, RFC 7258 on Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 09:59:56 +0100 From: Stephen Farrell To: perpass FYI. Thanks to everyone who contributed, and who is continuing to contribute as we get into the more detailed work... Cheers, S. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: BCP 188, RFC 7258 on Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:45:35 -0700 (PDT) From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org Reply-To: ietf at ietf.org To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org CC: drafts-update-ref at iana.org, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. BCP 188 RFC 7258 Title: Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack Author: S. Farrell, H. Tschofenig Status: Best Current Practice Stream: IETF Date: May 2014 Mailbox: stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie, Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net Pages: 6 Characters: 13396 See Also: BCP 188 I-D Tag: draft-farrell-perpass-attack-06.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7258.txt Pervasive monitoring is a technical attack that should be mitigated in the design of IETF protocols, where possible. BCP: This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list perpass at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Fri May 16 05:10:47 2014 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 09:10:47 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Libraries and archives from around the world sign letter asking EU to engage constructively in copyright discussions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A796BFD05CCD49A3A513599E2C948E01C7F5AE@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Dear Colleagues Apologies for cross-posting. A further development regarding the libraries and copyright issues I have previously posted on. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Kind regards, Stuart Stuart Hamilton Director of Policy and Advocacy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 Twitter: @ifladpa .............................................................................. Fulfill the promise of the Innovation Union: Libraries, Archives and Research Institutions need balanced copyright laws http://www.ifla.org/node/8621 More than 60 library, archive and research institutions from countries across the European Union and internationally, representing over 650,000 information professionals, have joined together in a letter asking the European Union to engage constructively in text-based discussions at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on copyright exceptions for libraries and archives. The letter is available here: http://www.ifla.org/node/8619 Organisations from Spain, France, Poland, Italy, Slovakia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, Armenia, Bulgaria, Russia and Sweden, as well as Australia, Canada and Colombia, have joined with European and international library and archive associations highlighting the copyright challenges preventing international research collaboration, preservation of cultural heritage and new forms of innovation. The signatories of the letter urge the European Union and its Member States to ensure that text-based discussion of an international instrument on copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives continues to be reflected in the mandate of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright & Related Rights (SCCR), and that the European Union engages constructively in these discussions. At the last meeting of the SCCR, the European Union tried to reverse conclusions that had been previously agreed by all of the world's countries at WIPO. The discussions at WIPO are important to: * Foster a cutting-edge, open international research culture * Ensure future researchers have access to Europe's digitized and born-digital heritage; and * Make European cultural heritage globally accessible More information about the 27th meeting of the SCCR can be found here. If your organization would like to endorse the letter, email Ellen Broad (ellen.broad at ifla.org). Please note it may take one day for your organisation's signature to be reflected on the webpage. Ellen Broad Manager, Digital Projects and Policy International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands Phone: 0031703140884 Twitter: @ellenbroad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 1 08:47:25 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 13:47:25 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. Thanks sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What > can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each > participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... > 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. > Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare > speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. > 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but > more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even > the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? > 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common > stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among > the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS > division. from that when we read comments from all over > 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome > document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw > process - from the very beginning. > 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? > 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any > serious objective > 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a > couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means > that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. > 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when > from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and > un-solved. > 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of > that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with > some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the > old colonial times. > > Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), > a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS > would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues > where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a > common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power > in the game. It is not the case today. > > If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge > gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC > will keep growing. > > Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS > come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the > I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of > what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to > the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has > been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from > diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and > multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) > and a World Internet Organization are > the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many > issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. > I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, > and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their > un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. > Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the > USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision > of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 > is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the > Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and > addressing. > > In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major > concern)? > > A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to > many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be > welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. > > JC > > Post-scriptum: > John, > Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for > the Internet governance? > > JC > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : > > On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would > help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive > and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net > Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a > four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in > between. > > > If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models > of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a > repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... > > If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such > improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to > maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding > years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in > agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan > for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out > the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform > that we've just very successfully created. > > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lea at gp-digital.org Fri May 16 09:53:49 2014 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 14:53:49 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest - FOC working group "An Internet Free and Secure" Message-ID: Dear all, In case of interest - On behalf of the co-chairs of the Freedom Online Coalition's working group "An Internet Free and Secure" - the Dutch government and Ronald Deibert of Citizen Lab - I am hereby forwarding a call for expressions of interest to join them in shaping the WG's outputs and activities. With warm wishes, Lea ---- Freedom Online Coalition: Working Group 1 - An Internet Free and Secure As cybersecurity becomes a critical issue on the international agenda, there is a growing need for an informed debate on the relationship between governance, security, and fundamental rights and freedoms online, involving all stakeholders. In this context, the working group "Internet free and secure" seeks to bring a human rights framing to ongoing debates on cybersecurity and aims to develop, through multistakeholder dialogue, meaningful outputs that feed into existing processes. Framing Within the above framing and building on the Tallinn Agenda, while drawing on the outcomes from NetMundial and acknowledging the ongoing discussions on roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders in internet policy debates, the preliminary framing for this WG is to explore and develop recommendations on how the multistakeholder approach could apply in the field of cybersecurity. The proposed framing and exact output of the Group will be further refined by its members. Structure and Membership The work of the WG will be carried out by its members. The Group will consist of up to 15 selected individuals who will join the WG Co-chairs - the Dutch Government and Ronald Deibert of Citizen Lab - and other FOC country members who have expressed interest in participating in the WG. Non-members of the WG will be able to input into the WG at various points in the process through physical meetings and online. Activities of the WG will be supported by the FOC Support Unit. In an effort to bring a variety of perspectives to the table, the WG Co-chairs are now seeking expressions of interest from individuals and organisations to join the Working Group, help shape its framing, and carry out its work. To submit an expression of interest, please send a short motivation outlining how your experience and expertise could contribute to shaping the Group's work and outcomes to info at freedomonlinecoalition.com with a subject line "FOC - WG1 expression of interest_name surname". The deadline for submissions is Friday, May 30th 2014. Please also indicate if you're planning to attend the upcoming Stockholm Internet Forum and would be available for a short informal brainstorm to develop the framing of the working group. Expressions of interest will be evaluated by the FOC Support Unit and WG Co-chairs, based on the following criteria: * Quality of submission * Relevance of experience and expertise * Regional, gender, and stakeholder balance Please note that participation in the Working Group is voluntary. Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions. Working methods and timeline The bulk of the WG's work will be done remotely via email, with potential physical meetings on the margins of existing international events like the Internet Governance Forum. A detailed plan of work will be developed by WG members. Group decisions and approval of final outcomes will be made by consensus among Group members. The tentative end-date for the WG is the Global Conference on Cyberspace in spring 2015. --- For more information about the Freedom Online Coalition, its working groups and this call, please visit the FOC website: https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/ --- Lea Kaspar | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M +44 (0)7583 929 216 | Skype: l.kaspar gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at openmedia.ca Tue May 13 15:12:26 2014 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:12:26 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International Internet users join the campaign against proposed Internet Slow Lane plan from the FCC Message-ID: For those interesting in the Net Neutrality (Open Internet) battle in the US -- OpenMedia.org just launched an international campaign on the issue here: https://openmedia.org/slowlane The crucial meeting takes place in less than 48hrs so if you can help spread the word that would be great. If your group would like to endorse the campaign or otherwise help out let me know. I have also attached banners/images that can be added to websites -- just link them to the above link. You can find our press release below. For Immediate Release International Internet users join the campaign against proposed Internet Slow Lane plan from the FCC Crucial U.S. FCC meeting on Thursday could mean many of our favorite websites and online services slow to a crawl May 13, 2014 – Internet users around the world are speaking out to prevent drastic new proposals that could see many favourite websites slow to a crawl. Leading Canadian Internet freedom group OpenMedia.org has teamed up with The Nation magazine and other groups to launch an international online campaign aimed at stopping the plan. Key decision-makers at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) meet Thursday to discuss a proposal from FCC Chair Tom Wheeler that would force every service that can’t pay new “prioritization” fees into a slow lane. The proposed new rules would come into effect in the U.S., but their effects would soon be felt worldwide, crippling many favorite websites and online services, while making it more expensive for people to use the Internet. “We have just 48 hours to stop this reckless and irresponsible plan that would make our Internet slower, more expensive, and more like cable TV,” said OpenMedia Executive Director Steve Anderson. “Internet users from around the world are speaking out because we all know this plan amounts to an Internet Slow Lane for every website and service unwilling to pay extortionate new fees to telecom giants. Big Telecom’s army of lobbyists have been pushing for these new gatekeeper powers for years - they want to take power away from Internet users by forcing us to watch the content they own, slowing everything else to a standstill.” Anderson continued: “These proposals will harm Internet users not just in the U.S. but right across the planet - pretty much everyone who uses a U.S.-based online service will be affected. The FCC needs to listen to citizens instead of telecom lobbyists. Instead of signing a death warrant for the free and open Internet they need to implement new safeguards to guarantee equal access for all online content.” The FCC meeting takes place on Thursday May 15. Defenders of the open Internet are already camping in growing numbers outside the FCC building, and won’t leave until the plan is revoked. - Here are photos of the encampment outside the FCC . - Here’s a video of protesters outside the FCC. Thousands of people are signing on in support of the campaign to Say No to the Internet Slow Lane at: https://OpenMedia.org/SlowLane About OpenMedia.org OpenMedia.org is an award-winning community-based organization that safeguards the possibilities of the open Internet. We work toward informed and participatory digital policy by engaging hundreds of thousands of people in protecting our online rights. Through campaigns such as StopTheMeter.ca and StopSpying.ca , OpenMedia.org has engaged over half-a-million citizens, and has influenced public policy and federal law. -30- Contact David Christopher Communications Manager, OpenMedia 1-778-232-1858 david at openmedia.ca More Information - Net Neutrality, Monopoly, and the Death of the Democratic Internet. Source: Motherboard - FCC's new net neutrality rules opposed by 100+ internet companies (update: vote still on schedule). Source: Engadget . - Internet traffic from around the globe passes through U.S. servers, peering, and content delivery networks. As a result, it’s likely that web traffic from outside the U.S. could get caught in the slow lane. Source: Motherboard . - Protesters set up camp at net neutrality rally outside FCC headquarters. Source: The Guardian . - OpenMedia fought for and won Canadian Open Internet rules that should prevent Big Telecom discriminating against competing services. We even flew in some of the original architects of the Internetto the CRTC hearing. - CRTC report shows Internet openness complaints went up in 2012 - see this media advisory . - OpenMedia.ca’s crowdsourced Casting an Open Net Plancalls for net neutrality audits and penalties for companies in breach of net neutrality. - CRTC will rescind ‘unlimited use’ Internet decision – or Ottawa will overturn it. Source: The Globe and Mail - OpenMedia.ca: Regulators pull back from usage-based billing after half-a-million Canadians speak out - "If using the Rogers 3G or LTE network, for only $5/month, customers can enjoy 10 hours of viewing on their device" (This means non-Rogers content is unfairly more expensive than Rogers-owned content.) Source: Google Play -- *Steve Anderson* Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca 604-837-5730 http://openmedia.ca steve at openmedia.ca Follow me on Twitter Friend me on Facebook * *Let's have access to affordable phone and Internet rates. * **Do you think we deserve a fair deal in our digital future? -->> OurFairDeal.org * *Confidentiality Warning:* * This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie, distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: slowlane-660x200.png Type: image/png Size: 32652 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: slowlane-200x200.png Type: image/png Size: 15985 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: slowlane_1180x260.png Type: image/png Size: 58839 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: slowlane_600x225.png Type: image/png Size: 57189 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: slowlane–580x150.png Type: image/png Size: 20961 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 16 06:49:04 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 12:49:04 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Reminder Re: Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: <20140516124904.19ed7147@quill> On Fri, 2 May 2014 23:11:00 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: >> He spoke against an agreed and very longstanding civil society >> position, one that was affirmed only last week. >> >> He should retract his statement. On Fri, 2 May 2014 18:08:14 +0200, I replied: > Please provide a link or links with detailed information on > 1) what you claim was affirmed last week, and on > 2) through what process it was affirmed. Adam, I'm still waiting for the essential specific information on the claimed affirmation of “an agreed and very longstanding civil society position”. Greetings, Norbert From niels at article19.org Mon May 12 10:21:34 2014 From: niels at article19.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:21:34 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] should BB submit coordinated comments? - Enhancing ICANN Accountability References: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I am working on this with others within the framework of the ICANN Non-Commercial User Constituency (NCUC), I would like to invite people to contribute to this but I am also happy to explore how we can collaborate more broadly on this. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Acting Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 05/09/2014 05:58 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Enhancing ICANN Accountability > > 4 > > > Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 6 May 2014 Comment > Close Date: 27 May 2014 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 28 May 2014 > Reply Close Date: 18 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC > > Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement > > > To Submit Your Comments (Forum) > View > Comments Submitted > > > Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: > > * Transparency/Accountability > > Purpose (Brief): > > As announced at ICANN's March 2014 Public Meeting in Singapore, > ICANN is initiating a discussion on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. > This discussion will look at how ICANN remains accountable in the > absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. > Government and the perceived backstop with regard to ICANN's > organization-wide accountability provided by that role. While > related to the ongoing discussions around the IANA Stewardship > Transition, this is a separate process, though the output of this > process is expected to be completed on the same timeframe as the > stewardship transition work. > > Current Status: > > ICANN is initiating the community discussion on enhancement of > ICANN's accountability through the posting of a background document > and questions for input. > > Next Steps: > > The responses received will be compiled and analyzed. Prior to > ICANN's June 2014 Public Meeting in London, ICANN's Supporting > Organizations and Advisory Committees will be requested to start > identifying Working Group participants, so that the work can start > in earnest at ICANN 50 after community input is received. > > Staff Contact: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President > on Strategy Email Staff Contact > > > Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and > Purpose: > > On March 14, 2014, the US National Telecommunications and > Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to > transition its stewardship over key Internet domain name functions > to the global multistakeholder community. NTIA asked ICANN, as the > IANA functions contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS, > to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal for the > transition. > > During discussions around the IANA stewardship transition, the > community has also raised the broader topic of the impact of the > transition on ICANN accountability. While the community develops a > proposal for the transition of NTIA's stewardship role, it is > important that the community also address the separate – but > interdependent and interrelated – issue of ICANN's accountability. > As a result, ICANN is launching a separate process, the scope of > which is to look at ICANN remaining accountable in the absence of > its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and > the perceived backstop with regard toICANN's organization-wide > accountability provided by that role, such as the renewal process > of the IANAFunctions Contract. This second process will examine > from an organizational perspective how ICANN's broader > accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to address the > absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. > Government. This includes looking at strengthening existing > accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation of Commitments > . > > This process is additive, not a duplication of any of the reviews called > for under the Affirmation of Commitments. > > This Accountability Process is envisioned to be coordinated by the > ICANN Accountability Working Group, comprised of community members > as well subject-matter experts in a range of areas, including: > > * Internet Technical Operations * International Organizational > Reviews * Global Accountability Tools and Metrics * Jurisprudence / > Accountability Mechanism * Internet Consumer Protection * Economics > (Marketplace and Competition) * Global Ethics Frameworks * > Operational, Finance and Process * Board Governance * Transparency > * Risk Management > > The Enhancing ICANN Accountability > > page sets out the detail of the proposed terms of reference for the > process as well as setting forth questions designed to provide > input to the ICANN Accountability Working Group. For ease of > reference, the questions posed are: > > * What issues does the community identify as being core to > strengthening ICANN's overall accountability in the absence of its > historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? * What > should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of > accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the > consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the > community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working > Group's mandate? * Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values > expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of > ICANN's accountability and so, how? * What are the means by which > the Community is assured that ICANN is meeting its accountability > commitments? * Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure > that ICANN lives up to its commitments? * What additional comments > would you like to share that could be of use to the > ICANNAccountability Working Group? > > As the public comment period is underway, ICANN will be reaching > out to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees > regarding the identification of Working Group members. ICANN > anticipates that the Working Group will commence its work, > including consideration of community input, during ICANN 50 in June > 2014. It's expected that sub-working groups on specialized subject > areas will be useful and open to all. > > Section II: Background: > > The Enhancing ICANN Accountability > > page sets forth detail on the community consultation that led to > the creation of this ICANN Accountability Process, as well as an > inventory of ICANN's current accountability efforts. > > Section III: Document and Resource Links: > > Community input is sought on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability > proposal. Further background on the IANA Stewardship Transition is > available > athttp://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition. > > Section IV: Additional Information: > > N/A > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTcNi1AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp8ncIAKRtsvmmnvtzVZR8UwT1PzRk LwrFBEbKpzl5DASPX5x4+qh7b7xlhoZFebUxOMs3dSVuEPHYFIjdOsAqFygik3Ft 57LglmF+AYW/J04Rnzn2q5HYURRGxwIztYmLa859rGMYGBDGEKq08w13RBNW/D9e enmRT/IXcX7uN5198W7wexPsZMZbWfhU65rfkyWPWybdTriRvft67TVQ1Q0hYMbz BmuahqmD/GdyJI+VMofPp5Tk2JaxnHaszmT62PhsiNIB6+fd/ULzWI0UyJbg8SW1 gRieifbqQA83uZPt7cF/R7VJEIksJr9vcp/3kQGg2vJVOCchGS8hQs0YnTjEMKs= =d0Q9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun May 18 06:25:25 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 19:25:25 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Macro Civil - online drafting and comments Message-ID: <0E91000C-FF4E-4EA1-B6F6-C4746C02C4F7@glocom.ac.jp> Can anyone point to a description of the process and use of online drafting tools used to develop/take comment on the text of Marco Civil? Any screen shots would be helpful. Thank you, Adam From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Sun May 18 08:23:47 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 08:23:47 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Macro Civil - online drafting and comments In-Reply-To: <0E91000C-FF4E-4EA1-B6F6-C4746C02C4F7@glocom.ac.jp> References: <0E91000C-FF4E-4EA1-B6F6-C4746C02C4F7@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Adam, I can’t help you with Marco Civil (or “Macro Civil”), but the Philippines' Magna Carta for Philippines Internet Freedom, now being considered in Congress, was crowd-sourced, and you may be interested in that process too. If you are, I can put you in touch with some sources there. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Adam Peake > Reply-To: Adam Peake > Date: Sunday, May 18, 2014 at 6:25 AM To: "Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: [bestbits] Macro Civil - online drafting and comments Can anyone point to a description of the process and use of online drafting tools used to develop/take comment on the text of Marco Civil? Any screen shots would be helpful. Thank you, Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From flavia at tmgtelecom.com Sun May 18 09:29:20 2014 From: flavia at tmgtelecom.com (Flavia Alves) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 13:29:20 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Macro Civil - online drafting and comments In-Reply-To: <0E91000C-FF4E-4EA1-B6F6-C4746C02C4F7@glocom.ac.jp> References: <0E91000C-FF4E-4EA1-B6F6-C4746C02C4F7@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <9A60BAED-4B89-4471-9964-6A9536047ECF@tmgtelecom.com> Hi Adam, You can find the description of the process, plus documents of the public consultations at http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/sobre/. The material is in Portuguese, but if you open the page using google chrome and use the google translate tool, you will be all right. Hope that helps! Flavia On 18/05/2014, at 06:25, "Adam Peake" > wrote: Can anyone point to a description of the process and use of online drafting tools used to develop/take comment on the text of Marco Civil? Any screen shots would be helpful. Thank you, Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon May 19 08:40:20 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:40:20 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG workshop evaluations Message-ID: <63478854-0B22-4F98-8485-4BF8ACFD76B6@glocom.ac.jp> A spreadsheet with MAG evaluations of workshop proposals can be downloaded from this link attachments might download as .bin, change the file extension to .xsls. MAG member's comments don't seem consistent from one proposal to the next. Disappointing to see from Secretariat's email that "12 open forum requests + 7 Dynamic coalition requests + 4 best practice sessions" will be given slots with seemingly no evaluation or criteria. But perhaps MAG will tighten things up during this meeting in Paris. Adam From iza at anr.org Mon May 19 09:09:06 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:09:06 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] IGF MAG workshop evaluations In-Reply-To: <63478854-0B22-4F98-8485-4BF8ACFD76B6@glocom.ac.jp> References: <63478854-0B22-4F98-8485-4BF8ACFD76B6@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Here is the link to the Compilation of ALL workshop proposals, some of you must have already known, but just for your convenience again. http://wgig.org/info/Workshop_Proposal_List.2014v3.pdf It is more than 16 Mb, so that I cannot attach it here. izumi 2014-05-19 21:40 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake : > A spreadsheet with MAG evaluations of workshop proposals can be downloaded > from this link > > < > http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/2014-May/001502.html > > > > attachments might download as .bin, change the file extension to .xsls. > > MAG member's comments don't seem consistent from one proposal to the next. > Disappointing to see from Secretariat's email that "12 open forum requests > + 7 Dynamic coalition requests + 4 best practice sessions" will be given > slots with seemingly no evaluation or criteria. But perhaps MAG will > tighten things up during this meeting in Paris. > > Adam > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Mon May 19 09:32:08 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:32:08 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultation - Day 1 Message-ID: We have interesting discussion around the NET mundial lessons - in the morning and first portion of afternoon session in Paris at IGF Open Consultation/MAG meeting. The Chair made a summary of morning discussion which is less proactive than most felt it should be. But with afternoon discussion, largely calling for more brave ways to explore not only CS members,but also with UK and US governments, the Chair asked MAG volunteers to form an informal Working Group on Outcome of IGF, to discuss tonight and report back to the meeting tomorrow. Some 25+ stood up (as Chair asked to stand up), and Mark Carvell was asked to be the coordinator. Now, we are moving to discuss about the Main/Focus session Just my informal and sketchy observation. Watch the Live streaming or scripts for more details, please. izumi -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu May 1 08:51:09 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 09:51:09 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <53622BC0.1060307@digitaldissidents.org> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <5360F56C.8020002@cafonso.ca> <53622BC0.1060307@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <5362433D.1020709@cafonso.ca> Hi Niels, On 05/01/2014 08:10 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > On 04/30/2014 03:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not >> included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand >> English, this is the paragraph on it: >> >> "UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a >> globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and >> accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique >> identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely >> end-to-end regardless of the lawful content." >> > > This definition allows for charging differentially by user, content, > site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of > communication. It is not a definition -- nobody had said that so far. The recommendation for a principle provides the basis without which your dreams (which are also ours, or at least mine) would not come true. Do you think we would be able to delve into such details in an attempt to build a pluralist consensus document? And this is why we mentioned in the Roadmap the issue is complex and merits further dialogue and recommendations. In the Marco Civil, we also recognize the issue is not exhausted, this is why we agreed to insert the possibility of further regulation under the guidance of CGI.br and Anatel. This in itself was a major victory, as the transnational telcos (mostly European) who control the network market in Brazil did not want even the mention of CGI.br anywhere in the document. Sometimes I think some progressive civil society groups have slipped towards Aristotelian logic -- either we get all or nothing -- forgetting all about political tactics. Unfortunate. BTW, I would really like to see the list of orgs who signed (or agreed to) the statement. I find it hard to believe that 50-60 orgs were so naïve in grasping the relevance of the moment and the nature of the final document after participating in the event (I assume they all participated?). And I thank again Stephanie Perrin for understanding that relevance and nature. fraternal regards --c.a. > > So I am not sure it would fall under my definition of network neutrality. > > Best, > > Niels > > Niels ten Oever > Acting Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > From joly at punkcast.com Mon May 19 14:18:23 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 14:18:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] REMOTE PARTICIPATION/WEBCAST: #IGF USA Planning Meeting 2pm EDT today #igfusa @isocdc Message-ID: This has just started. If you are visiting later, go to the webcast and you can back down the timeline. joly posted: "Today Monday May 19 2014 at 2pm EDT a planning meeting for the forthcoming Internet Governance Forum USA (IGF-USA) meeting, scheduled for July 2014, will be held in Washington DC. IGF-USA is a multistakeholder effort to illuminate issues and cultivate con" [image: IGF-USA]Today Monday May 19 2014 at 2pm EDT a planning meeting for the forthcoming *Internet Governance Forum USA* (IGF-USA) meeting, scheduled for *July 2014*, will be held in Washington DC. IGF-USA is a multistakeholder effort to illuminate issues and cultivate constructive discussions about the future of the Internet. It provides a domestic forum in the US to engage civil society, government, technologists, research scientists, industry and academia, helping to create partnerships, coalitions and dialogues that demonstrate best practices and help move policy forward. IGF-USA 2014 seeks to develop new momentum and dialogue on the key issues under consideration in the field. Remote participation in the meeting is available via webex. The meeting will also be webcast live via the Internet Society Livestream Channel. *What*: IGF USA Planning Meeting *Where*: Washington DC *When*: Today Monday May 19 2014 at 2pm-4:30pm EDT | 1800-2030 UTC *Webex*: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/j.php?MTID=mf832feb75dc5008d8e8c46be0cd4ecc6(pass: igfusa) *Webcast*: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf-usa-2014-planning *Twitter*: #igfusa Comment See all comments *Remember* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6637 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon May 19 15:49:59 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 19:49:59 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultation - Day 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Izumi. (Now I know there is the first Izumi and the second Izumi, who is a female). A bunch of us were remotely participating and yes, NetMundial was the refrain. And I saw that by the by, the issue of being concrete with outcomes is gaining traction. Do you think it is possible to remotely contribute to the work of the outcome group? Or only MAG folks are in? Just asking N On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > We have interesting discussion around the NET mundial lessons - in the > morning and first portion of afternoon session in Paris at IGF Open > Consultation/MAG meeting. > > The Chair made a summary of morning discussion which is less proactive > than most felt it should be. > > But with afternoon discussion, largely calling for more brave ways to > explore not only CS members,but also with UK and US governments, the Chair > asked MAG volunteers to form an informal Working Group on Outcome of IGF, > to discuss tonight and report back to the meeting tomorrow. > > Some 25+ stood up (as Chair asked to stand up), and Mark Carvell was asked > to be the coordinator. > > Now, we are moving to discuss about the Main/Focus session > > Just my informal and sketchy observation. > > Watch the Live streaming or scripts for more details, please. > > izumi > > > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon May 19 16:17:09 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:17:09 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Macro Civil - online drafting and comments In-Reply-To: <9A60BAED-4B89-4471-9964-6A9536047ECF@tmgtelecom.com> References: <0E91000C-FF4E-4EA1-B6F6-C4746C02C4F7@glocom.ac.jp> <9A60BAED-4B89-4471-9964-6A9536047ECF@tmgtelecom.com> Message-ID: This is one of the websites used for the consultation. This is the official one, by the Brazilian congress. http://edemocracia.camara.gov.br and specifically - http://edemocracia.camara.gov.br/web/marco-civil-da-internet On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Flavia Alves wrote: > Hi Adam, > > You can find the description of the process, plus documents of the > public consultations at http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/sobre/. The > material is in Portuguese, but if you open the page using google chrome and > use the google translate tool, you will be all right. > > Hope that helps! > > Flavia > > On 18/05/2014, at 06:25, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > Can anyone point to a description of the process and use of online > drafting tools used to develop/take comment on the text of Marco Civil? > Any screen shots would be helpful. > > Thank you, > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon May 19 16:28:21 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:28:21 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Macro Civil - online drafting and comments In-Reply-To: References: <0E91000C-FF4E-4EA1-B6F6-C4746C02C4F7@glocom.ac.jp> <9A60BAED-4B89-4471-9964-6A9536047ECF@tmgtelecom.com> Message-ID: and here - slides 3 to 7 have some statistics. http://www.slideshare.net/pedro_paranagua/talk-global-congressmarcocivil15122012 edemocracia had a report on that...I wrote a person I know there asking the report, since I cannot find it anymore... anyway...in the open and closed consultations you can see how it works On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > This is one of the websites used for the consultation. This is the > official one, by the Brazilian congress. > > http://edemocracia.camara.gov.br > > and specifically - > http://edemocracia.camara.gov.br/web/marco-civil-da-internet > > > > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Flavia Alves wrote: > >> Hi Adam, >> >> You can find the description of the process, plus documents of the >> public consultations at http://culturadigital.br/marcocivil/sobre/. The >> material is in Portuguese, but if you open the page using google chrome and >> use the google translate tool, you will be all right. >> >> Hope that helps! >> >> Flavia >> >> On 18/05/2014, at 06:25, "Adam Peake" wrote: >> >> Can anyone point to a description of the process and use of online >> drafting tools used to develop/take comment on the text of Marco Civil? >> Any screen shots would be helpful. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Adam >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Tue May 20 05:47:56 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 18:47:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF Open Consultation - Day 1 In-Reply-To: <1400530765.69601.YahooMailNeo@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1400530765.69601.YahooMailNeo@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Here follows is the informal WG meeting report on NETmundial lessons, Mark Carell prepared. izumi ----- MEETING REPORT OF MAG AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON IGF OUTPUTS , UNESCO,19 MAY 2014 Moderator: Mark Carvell (UK) The group met yesterday evening for 90 minutes of brainstorming on developing and enhancing IGF outcomes. About 35 members participated. Discussion focussed on the following: - Importance of capitalising on the intellectual leadership of the IGF through knowledge sharing of Internet governance challenges and successful best practice and their impact on capacity building in particular; - Building on CSTD WG recommendations and the momentum created by the mandate on specific issues from NETmundial; - Improving existing reporting mechanisms to better package, explain and make use of the wealth of knowledge and information from IGF discussions; - The importance of issues progressing though the succession from one IGF to the next IGF; - Creating mechanisms for enhancing accessibility of IGF data and reviewing improvements as a result of IGF discussions so that for example policymakers can identify solutions that could be applied to their particular situations; - Making IGF preparatory processes more inclusive and participatory in order to identify more rigorously key issues and gear up ahead of the IGF – learning from the NETmundial experience; - Developing proactive inter-sessional activity in particular more effective linkages with the national and regional IGFs; - Relevance of Tunis Agenda paragraph 72 (g) on recommendations relating to emerging issues and steps to be undertaken to transpose the discussions into practical steps – e.g toolkits for policymakers tailored to local conditions and needs; - Modalities for IGF addressing issues identified at NETmundial in a structured way including the use of preparatory concise briefing documents and online interaction for inputs; - Holding a dedicated session in the IGF programme on outcomes; - Reinvigorating the “Friends of the IGF” as a contributor to the communications strategy. There was general agreement that allocating substantial amounts of IGF time to negotiating was undesirable. There was recognition that the IGF has substantially improved the quality of internet governance discussions. Several proposals were made specifically on developing output mechanisms, communication and increasing interactive preparatory and follow up processes. There were several contributions stating that dissemination of information provided at IGF sessions and workshops notably the Chair’s report and workshop reports could be improved in order to communicate more effectively areas of agreement and divergence, and identifying issues not resolved. A working group could be set up to implement these improvements. There were also suggestions with regard to creating interactive repositories of information and data and enhancing the ability to interact with the IGF website. Survey mechanisms could also be developed. With regard to sustaining momentum from NETmundial, a series of workshops or special sessions relating to NETmundial topics should be added to the Istanbul IGF programme. Documents relating to these would be posted on the IGF website for comments and inputs. A roundtable event immediately prior to the IGF should be held and the related IGF workshop reports posted online as an IGF package of outputs. 2014-05-20 5:19 GMT+09:00 shaila mistry : > thank you > > Shaila Rao Mistry > > > President > Stem Institute > Transforming Ideals into Action > > President > *JAYCO* MMI > *Input Technology With A Human Touch* > > www.jaycopanels.com > Tel: 951 738 2000 > > MWOSB > > *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* > > *..................... the renaissance of composure ! * > On Monday, May 19, 2014 12:51 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > > > Thanks Izumi. (Now I know there is the first Izumi and the second Izumi, > who is a female). > > A bunch of us were remotely participating and yes, NetMundial was the > refrain. And I saw that by the by, the issue of being concrete with > outcomes is gaining traction. > > Do you think it is possible to remotely contribute to the work of the > outcome group? Or only MAG folks are in? > > Just asking > > N > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > We have interesting discussion around the NET mundial lessons - in the > morning and first portion of afternoon session in Paris at IGF Open > Consultation/MAG meeting. > > The Chair made a summary of morning discussion which is less proactive > than most felt it should be. > > But with afternoon discussion, largely calling for more brave ways to > explore not only CS members,but also with UK and US governments, the Chair > asked MAG volunteers to form an informal Working Group on Outcome of IGF, > to discuss tonight and report back to the meeting tomorrow. > > Some 25+ stood up (as Chair asked to stand up), and Mark Carvell was asked > to be the coordinator. > > Now, we are moving to discuss about the Main/Focus session > > Just my informal and sketchy observation. > > Watch the Live streaming or scripts for more details, please. > > izumi > > > > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue May 20 12:39:51 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:39:51 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] My Candidacy for BB's Steering Committee Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I have the honor to submit my candidacy for the Best Bits Steering Committee. I send my information attached in response to some of the questions posed. I am running for any of these positions/spaces: Latin America and Caribbean, North America and for a non-geographical one. Please, let me know if you have any questions or comment. I am looking forward to working with all of you. Cheers and very exciting, :-) Carol -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CRCandidacy4BB.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 67251 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Tue May 20 12:44:49 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=C3=B3mez?=) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 11:44:49 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] My Candidacy for BB's Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carolina congratulations. Una gran noticia y tienes nuestro apoyo permanente 2014-05-20 11:39 GMT-05:00 Carolina Rossini : > Dear Colleagues, > > I have the honor to submit my candidacy for the Best Bits Steering > Committee. I send my information attached in response to some of the > questions posed. > > I am running for any of these positions/spaces: Latin America and > Caribbean, North America and for a non-geographical one. > > Please, let me know if you have any questions or comment. I am looking > forward to working with all of you. > > Cheers and very exciting, :-) > > Carol > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet presidencia at acui.co @amedinagomez Skype amedinagomez Celular 3118689626 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at gp-digital.org Tue May 20 13:13:25 2014 From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 18:13:25 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] My candidacy for the BB steering group Message-ID: *Candidacy of Andrew Puddephatt for the Best Bits steering Committee* ● *Bio:* Andrew Puddephatt is the Director of Global Partners Digital, which seeks to promote democracy and human rights online. Previously, Andrew was the Director of Article 19 the international freedom of expression organisation and prior to that the head of the UK’s National Council for Civil Liberties, where he led the campaign for the UK Bill of Rights – enshrined in law in 2000. He is a board member of the European Council for Foreign Relations, International Media Support in Denmark and is Deputy Chair of the Sigrid Rausing Trust. In the past Andrew has been an expert advisor to UNESCO for whom he drafted the Media Development Indicators, which have been widely adopted. He has also drafted Journalist Safety Indicators for UNESCO and was an expert advisor to the Council of Europe on access to information, to the Commonwealth Secretariat on freedom of expression and to UNDP on access to information. Andrew is a graduate of Cambridge University. ● *Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on the steering committee?* As one of those who helped establish Best Bits as an inclusive platform for civil society globally, I am committed to continuing to develop BB as a forum for debate. My views on the way forward for BB are summarised at http://pad.bestbits.net/manifesto For me the three key elements that should shape the Internet field going forward are: · A commitment to human rights values and norms forming the basis of the engineering, architecture, commercial and regulatory environment · A belief that governance should be dispersed into bodies best able to carry out the different governance functions · A belief that multi-stakeholder processes can be developed to enhance democratic participation If elected to the steering group, furthering these views will be my goals. ● *That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your strengths lie?* I can commit the time that is necessary. I think my strengths lie in my ability to facilitate and support the participation of others, rather than treating Best Bits as a means to promote my own views. I am collaborative by belief and inclination. I’m happy to work in the background, help raise funds, help organise meetings and look at how to provide capacity building support for newer members. I think it is important to grow a new generation of younger leaders and ensure that Internet policy is not dominated by the same voices year and after year. If elected I will work towards this goal. ● *Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at * *http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/** and the draft procedures at **http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/**. (These are not written in stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.)* I have helped develop these rules and procedures but recognize there is room for improvement. An elected steering committee will be much better placed to strengthen the infrastructure of BB. -- *Andrew Puddephatt* | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Tue May 20 13:33:22 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:33:22 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] My Candidacy for BB's Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <537B91E2.7030704@acm.org> Hi, Just curious, was the process explained for this? I checked the archive and did not see it, but perhaps I overlooked it. Can someone explain? thanks avri PS. nice stmts by the way I would trust either or both of you, that is not why i am asking. From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue May 20 13:48:43 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:48:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] My Candidacy for BB's Steering Committee In-Reply-To: <537B91E2.7030704@acm.org> References: <537B91E2.7030704@acm.org> Message-ID: Yes. Jeremy sent a long email to the list a month ago or so. I will forward. On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Just curious, was the process explained for this? I checked the archive > and did not see it, but perhaps I overlooked it. > > Can someone explain? > > thanks > > avri > > > PS. nice stmts by the way > I would trust either or both of you, > that is not why i am asking. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 1 09:18:02 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 22:18:02 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <5362433D.1020709@cafonso.ca> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <5360F56C.8020002@cafonso.ca> <53622BC0.1060307@digitaldissidents.org> <5362433D.1020709@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: And... On May 1, 2014, at 9:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi Niels, > > On 05/01/2014 08:10 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> Dear Carlos, >> >> On 04/30/2014 03:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not >>> included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand >>> English, this is the paragraph on it: >>> >>> "UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a >>> globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and >>> accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique >>> identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely >>> end-to-end regardless of the lawful content." >>> >> >> This definition allows for charging differentially by user, content, >> site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of >> communication. > > It is not a definition -- nobody had said that so far. The recommendation for a principle provides the basis without which your dreams (which are also ours, or at least mine) would not come true. Do you think we would be able to delve into such details in an attempt to build a pluralist consensus document? And this is why we mentioned in the Roadmap the issue is complex and merits further dialogue and recommendations. > We kept asking for specific text. Something the we could work with in drafting. Asked on this list and others, asked at the CS meeting on 22nd. I think I even suggested: "Neutrality: The Internet should remain a neutral and open platform, free from discrimination, so as to encourage free expression, the free flow of information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship." Not great, but something to argue for. (and it might have been a lever to keep the other creator text out of the document?) We looked through the transcripts and all I remember seeing is general statements (we want to see NN mentioned, blah... and those were balanced by others who said there was no place for net neutrality in the documents). Sorry if I missed anything, but we needed text to work with, and needed support. Where we got help, it worked: thanks particularly to Robin, Stephanie, Avri. Anyway. A very enjoyable and rewarding process. There are a lot of positives in the documents. I'm very grateful to CS for asking me to join the EMC. Thank you, Adam > In the Marco Civil, we also recognize the issue is not exhausted, this is why we agreed to insert the possibility of further regulation under the guidance of CGI.br and Anatel. This in itself was a major victory, as the transnational telcos (mostly European) who control the network market in Brazil did not want even the mention of CGI.br anywhere in the document. > > Sometimes I think some progressive civil society groups have slipped towards Aristotelian logic -- either we get all or nothing -- forgetting all about political tactics. Unfortunate. > > BTW, I would really like to see the list of orgs who signed (or agreed to) the statement. I find it hard to believe that 50-60 orgs were so naïve in grasping the relevance of the moment and the nature of the final document after participating in the event (I assume they all participated?). > > And I thank again Stephanie Perrin for understanding that relevance and nature. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > >> >> So I am not sure it would fall under my definition of network neutrality. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> Niels ten Oever >> Acting Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From avri at acm.org Tue May 20 13:59:39 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:59:39 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] My Candidacy for BB's Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: <537B91E2.7030704@acm.org> Message-ID: <537B980B.50501@acm.org> Hi, oh, so I just did not check back far enough in the arhcive. I remember an explanation of the system, I did not recall this being the initiation of a process. Will find and re-read. apologies. avri On 20-May-14 13:48, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Yes. Jeremy sent a long email to the list a month ago or so. I will > forward. > From avri at acm.org Tue May 20 14:02:18 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 14:02:18 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: <85C8916F-7823-4B7D-A85A-9DD1AE8DA6E7@Malcolm.id.au> References: <85C8916F-7823-4B7D-A85A-9DD1AE8DA6E7@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <537B98AA.50509@acm.org> Yep, this is what I missed. thanks avvri On 01-May-14 10:37, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Dear all, > > As there was general support for the proposed election process that was > proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been > made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the > next Best Bits steering committee. > > * Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days > * Anyone can claim voting rights if they: > o have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the > election being called; and > o agree to the existing statement of objectives > (see http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). > * Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each > separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): > o Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, > Europe, North America/Other > o Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which > may result in fewer positions filled > * Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical > position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or > the other. > * Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system > * It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of > each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there > is a broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election > notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. > * Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, > with a 1 year gap before reappointment. > * Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. > > *Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 > May.* This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the > returning officer. Ian Peter > has volunteered to act as the returning > officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian taking > this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us know. > > There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a > suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: > > * Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on > the steering committee? > * That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote > to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community > of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or > interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. > Where do you think your strengths lie? > * Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives > at http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures > at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not > written in stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current > practices.) > * Anything else that you wish to communicate. > > > Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group > of candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please > let us know. > > -- > 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. > From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue May 20 03:45:29 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 09:45:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] ICANN Strategy References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016422D3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, FYI: ICANN has started to discuss its five-year-strategy plan. I invite everybody to make comments, in particular members of this list who have been critical with regard to ICANNs globalization and accountability status. This is the place to articulate concerns and to make concrete and constructive proposals how to enhance ICANNs´s way to implement the multistakeholder model and to become a center of operational excellence. http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/feedback-encouraged-on-icanns-draft-five-year-strategic-plan-fy-2016-2020/ Wolfgang From antiropy at gmail.com Tue May 20 22:23:00 2014 From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 11:23:00 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [Ask for Help] survey on the collection and use of national ID number Message-ID: Hi, I'm Byoungil Oh from Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet. I'm leading following research program on national ID number. As a part of research, We're carrying out the survey on the collection and use of nationa ID number in various sectors of each countries. It's a little bit long, but I do hope your cooperation to take a time to answer the questions. I'll share the rusult of this survey which, I believe, could be also very helpful for your work. *After completing the survey, please reply to antiropy at gmail.com until 15, June. * Your feedback on the survey more then welcome. Thank you Byoungil Oh p.s I attached the questionaire in odf file. ----- Collection and use of national ID number: ---- a survey conducted by Korean civil society organizations (Citizens' Action Network, Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice, Consumers Korea, Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet, Open Net Korea) Well before the advent of the Internet, many countries have had a system of national identification number to identify their nationals or residents for a variety of purposes such as taxation, social welfare services, issuance of passports or policing. In the age of the Internet and digitization of information, e-government system often makes use of the national ID number to 'link' many different databases holding information about one's dealings with various public sector services. While this is a practice designed to increase the efficiency of e-government services, it may pose a serious threat to privacy and it can easily be abused to facilitate surveillance. If, moreover, the national ID number is used not only for e-government services but also for private sector services such as financial services, then the risk of abuse becomes even more serious. As more and more services make use of the national ID number, the risk of data breach involving national ID number would increase and the consequence of breach can be devastating. South Korea is an example where national ID number has been collected and widely used not only by government departments but also by private sector service providers. National ID number is, as it were, a "key" to have access to all sorts of services -- public or private. An individual (data subject) does not have a clear idea about how much of the information regarding him/her can be inter-linked through the national ID number. The risk of unlawful surveillance and misuse of national ID number is high. We, Korean civil society organization have argued that the risk of using national ID number in online as well as offline services needs to be carefully re-assessed. We believe that collection and use of the national ID number should be limited to very narrowly defined public services only. Public bodies and private entities should consider the risk of relying on a single personal ID number, which will inevitably have the consequence of accumulating personal data to an unacceptable level and increasing the risk of data breach. As far as possible, common and universal personal ID system, such as national ID, should be avoided. We conduct the present survey in order to have an accurate picture of the extent to which national ID number is used in various sectors in different countries. We hope that our research can provide useful information for policy makers in many countries when they tackle the questions relating to identity management of their citizens. We should be grateful if you could take the time to answer the following questions. Should you have any further inquiries regarding this survey, please contact antiropy at gmail.com (Mr Byoungil Oh) or master at opennet.or.kr. 0. Something about you... Your name: Your email address: Affiliation: Where do you live (name of the country) : I. National ID Number In this survey, "national ID number" means one or more systems where the government assigns a unique identification number (consisting of digits, letters or combination of any characters) to citizens and residents (including foreign residents) of the country. 1-1. What is the name of your national ID number? (If your country has more than one ID systems, please list the one which is most widely used. The next few questions are also about the most widely used national ID system in your country.) 1-2. Is your national ID number mandatory or optional? ( ) Mandatory. Everyone is assigned a unique ID. No need to apply for one. ( ) Optional. You need to apply to have the ID assigned to you. 1-3. When is the ID number assigned? (at birth, at a certain age, etc.) 1-4. Is it possible to change your ID number? If yes, under what circumstances can you apply to have a new ID number assigned to you? 1-5. If your government issues a national ID card (different from the passport), what kinds of information does the national ID card contain? If your government does not issue a national ID card (apart from passport), you may skip this question. - name - address - date of birth - gender (male, female) - physical characteristics (eye color, height, etc.) - photo - finger prints - Other: 1-6. Does your country regulate the collection and use of national ID number? For example, can anyone collect and use your national ID for the purpose of offering a service? Or is there a restriction as to who can collect and use your national ID? 1-7. When your ID card is issued, how is your identity verified? II. National ID in public sector services Passport 2-1. When you apply to have a passport issued to you, how is your identity verified? Do you need to have a national ID card or other ID card(s) before you apply to have a passport issued to you? 2-2. Does the issuer of passport collect your national ID number or other ID card(s) details? Driving licence 2-3. When you apply to have a driving licence issued to you, how does the authority verify your identity? Do you need to have a national ID card or other ID card(s) before you apply for driving licence? 2-4. Does the issuer of driving licence collect your national ID number or other ID card(s) details? E-government services 2-5. In order to have access to certain e-government services which require user identity verification, how is your identity verified? Taxation 2-6. For taxation purposes, which ID is used to identify you? (for example, taxpayer number, National Insurance number, etc.) 2-7. If your ID for taxation is different from your national ID, is your national ID number 'linked' to your taxpayer number? 2-8. Does your employer collect your taxpayer number, national ID number or social security number or other ID number in connection with tax accounting? Welfare services 2-9. In order to have access to welfare services (such as housing, childcare, income support, etc.), which ID is used to identify you? (for example, an ID which is specifically issued for welfare services, such as Social security number, National Insurance number, or national ID number etc) 2-10. In your country, is national ID number linked to any number for welfare services? Health service 2-11. Which ID is used to identify you when you go to a hospital? (for example, health insurance number, etc) 2-12. In your country, is national ID number linked to health insurance number? 2-13. Is health service provider or health insurance authority allowed access to your taxation records or other database showing your income level? III. National ID in non-governmental services Education 3-1. Do schools (other than universities) verify identity of students when they enrol with the school? How is it done? 3-2. Do schools demand and collect student's or parent's national ID number, passport number, etc.? 3-3. When schools issue student ID card, how do they ascertain or verify student's identity? Financial services 3-4. When you open a bank account or apply for a credit card, how do banks or credit card companies verify your identity? 3-5. Do banks and credit card companies collect customers' national ID number or passport number? Mobile communication services 3-6. Are you required to identify yourself in order to have a mobile phone? - Yes, regardless of whether it is a pre-paid (pay as you go) service or monthly contract. - It depends. No need to identify yourself for pre-paid service. 3-7. Do mobile carriers collect your national ID number or any other ID numbers such as passport number, social security number, etc.? 3-8. For monthly contracts, how do mobile carriers verify your identity? Online services 3-9. Are private sector service providers permitted to collect user's national ID number, passport number, social security number, taxpayer number, etc.? Adult verification 3-10. For adult oriented online content, how do site operators verify user's age? IV. General observations 4-1. How do you evaluate your country's situation regarding the use of national ID number in the context of online services? 4-2. What are your recommendations to strike a balance between safety and efficiency of online ID systems? Thank you! We are grateful to you for taking the time to respond. If you have any further comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact us at antiropy at gmail.com (Mr Byoungil Oh) or master at opennet.or.kr Do you wish to remain anonymous? - Please do not disclose my identity and do not quote my answer in an attributable manner. - I do not mind if my answers are quoted in an attributable manner. -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: survey_national_ID_number.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 32476 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed May 21 00:28:15 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 21:28:15 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Also offering my candidacy for Best Bits steering 2014 and an open election platform Message-ID: <9EFD2E71-CAA0-48A4-8C2F-C617EC9605C8@Malcolm.id.au> I am also casting my hat into the ring again for the first elected steering committee of Best Bits. Most of you will know me as one of the founders of Best Bits, former coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus, author of a book on the Internet Governance Forum, steering committee member of the OECD CSISAC and as of this week, Senior Global Policy Analyst at Electronic Frontier Foundation. Because I have just moved to the US I am running for the "US and Other" regional position and also for one of the three non-geographical positions. I am also nominating Nnenna Nwakanma and Marianne Franklin for election, each for their respective regional positions (Africa and Europe) and for the non-geographical positions. They are among the existing interim steering committee members who also include Andrew Puddephatt (who has just sent his nomination), Anja Kovacs, Deborah Brown, Joana Varon Ferraz and Valeria Betancourt - and actually I fully support the election of all of them too, but I'll leave it for others (or themselves) to send their nominations. Additionally, I am announcing this open election platform in the form of a manifesto for Best Bits in 2014, for which any candidate can express their support. I consulted with others on the interim steering committee in the drafting of this, but it is not a document of that committee or of Best Bits as a whole. Individual members of the interim steering committee, and any others who are running for election, can choose to run under this open election platform by expressing their support for the manifesto. A manifesto for Best Bits in 2014 Our vision for Best Bits continues to be that of an open platform for joint action and mutual support for members of civil society working on Internet public policy issues. As Best Bits has matured it has helped forge strong bonds between its regular participants, who have developed areas of common ground. In this context it is appropriate that Best Bits continues to evolve. This manifesto describes the path forward for Best Bits that we will support, if elected as steering committee members in 2014. It includes a commitment to advance - in an open and collaborative way - our shared commitment to the development and improvement of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes, and also proposes a new set of guidelines to help us all work together productively and supportively. While Best BIts began as a blank slate, there comes a point where a broad consensus around certain core principles can be identified. Our perception is that a large majority of participants support the further development of multi-stakeholder models of Internet governance policy development in general. There remains room for criticism and debate amongst our members about the appropriate definition and assessment of particular multi-stakeholder processes, which debate is welcome and encouraged. There are also groups who have recently begun organising separately outside of the Best Bits network to advance a position that is more skeptical of multi-stakeholderism, on the basis that they perceive it as anti-democratic, and we welcome that also, whilst disagreeing with that position. Despite this diversity in views, we perceive the need for solidarity on the core idea that it is only through multi-stakeholder processes that democratic ideals can be realised in global Internet governance. Best Bits participants who hold this belief cover a broad spectrum of political views, including those who are strongly progressive and pro-development. With your support, in 2014 we will work together to improve multi-stakeholder democracy in Internet governance, and will include as a priority of our 2014 meeting the development of a Best Bits standard of multi-stakeholder processes that represents this consensus. Aligned with this commitment, we perceive the need to work internally on our own processes. If elected, and with staffing support for which we will raise funds, we will push forward the work that was begun in 2013 to develop a robust set of working processes for Best Bits by consensus, through a dedicated working group. As part of this, we aim to reduce the trend that some joint action has been driven off-list into the shadows of off-list discussions, due to the perception of some that they cannot freely express themselves on list without being exposed to harsh criticism. Our processes should uphold the freedom of expression of participants whilst also ensuring that criticisms are contained and channeled so that they do not impede free discussion and collaboration. We reaffirm our support of the continuation of Best Bits as an open, collaborative platform. We also firmly believe that it has matured to the point where it can evolve into a more focussed and mutually supportive network in 2014, through which we can all work together towards the improvement of multi-stakeholder Internet governance processes that uphold and advance human rights and development. If you also believe this, we ask for your vote in the 2014 steering committee election. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From iza at anr.org Wed May 21 11:00:07 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 00:00:07 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Day 3 Message-ID: After finishing the workshop evaluation, the Open?MAG consultation meeting is approaching its end, and last 1 hour was spent for the discussion around how to Improve IGF and its outcome, responding to the NETmundial challenges, and the room could not make a consensus. 1) Organize a session on Day 0 2) Organize an additional workshop on this issue 3) Discuss inside the Main Session on Day 3. 1) is not feasible considering other community events already prepared 2) is not acceptable as MAG should not by itself host IGF centric event 2) is not acceptable because it is weak and the subject deserve more attention. Chair asked to stop the discussion now at this point and continue online. We have 30 minute to go. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Wed May 21 12:32:32 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:32:32 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] WePromise: Will you keep yours tomorrow? Message-ID: <537CD520.3040703@eff.org> Are you an European Citizen or have friends in the European Union? Then, keep reading the message below from our dearest friends at @EDRI (who are running an European campaign towards the next European Parliament Election). Please spread the word to your European friends. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: WePromise: Will you keep yours tomorrow? Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:54:54 +0200 From: Heini WePromise Reply-To: heini.jarvinen at edri.org To: heini.jarvinen at edri.org Hi, Thanks for your support and your promise. *The time has come to make your vote count!* *The European elections will take place between 22-25 May *and our digital rights are at stake. This is our opportunity to make sure that as many digital rights friendly candidates as possible are elected into the next European Parliament. The new Parliament matters as it will decide on crucial issues such as surveillance, net neutrality, data protection and copyright reforms, which will have a direct impact on our daily lives. In the end, more than 400 candidates signed the WePromise Charter of Digital Rights in 25 EU Member States. *Find out** **which candidate in your region supports digital rights* and keep your promise: https://www.wepromise.eu/en/#map Your WePromise team _Videos:_ Joe McNamee introduces WePromise.eu campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8av7GNBBX4 Support videos of candidates and civil society: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuRTm-zJDj8mPzMbzo3MTiA _Social media:_ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WePromise2014 Twitter: https://twitter.com/wepromiseEU #WePromiseEU Google+: https://plus.google.com/+WepromiseEu/post -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 884 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu May 22 09:53:49 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 09:53:49 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [gvadvocacy] Digital Security Guide for Sub-Saharan Africa Environmental Activists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Maybe folks here can help Samuel. Best, C ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel Maina Date: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:16 AM Subject: [gvadvocacy] Digital Security Guide for Sub-Saharan Africa Environmental Activists To: gvadvocacy at lists.riseup.net Dear friends, I am developing a digital security guide for environmental and natural resource transparency activists in Sub-Saharan Africa under contract from Tactical Tech http://tacticaltech.org . To gather information that I will need to shape this guide, I am conducting a survey of environmental and resource activists in these parts. The overall goal is to contextualize Tactical Tech's invaluable tool - Security-in-a-Box - for the environmental and resource community in this region. The production of the guide will be followed by outreach and possibly training workshops. I am requesting that you help identify some activists that I can interview or send questionnaires to for this purpose. It is important not to spread this request to insecure lists for obvious reasons. You can, however, send it directly to trusted individuals that you think would help and ask them to contact me. I will happily respond to your questions individually should you need clarification. Thank you, Sam *Samuel Maina* Communications Consultant Kijani Media Services Skype: sam.maina +254 723 874 859 -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu May 22 09:58:28 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 09:58:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Macro Civil - online drafting and comments In-Reply-To: <0E91000C-FF4E-4EA1-B6F6-C4746C02C4F7@glocom.ac.jp> References: <0E91000C-FF4E-4EA1-B6F6-C4746C02C4F7@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: And I finally found it. http://edemocracia.camara.gov.br/documents/679637/1515464/Marco+Civil+da+Internet.png/e62444b2-9993-47f3-826b-7aa6defec7d7?version=1.0&t=1362425607023 This info-graphic tells a little about participation and participation channels. The complete reports of Molon point to what was adopted (but those are all in portuguese) On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Can anyone point to a description of the process and use of online > drafting tools used to develop/take comment on the text of Marco Civil? > Any screen shots would be helpful. > > Thank you, > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri May 23 17:23:48 2014 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 00:23:48 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Comments Requested for ICANN report on DNS Industry in Underserved Regions | Deadline: 13 June 2014. Message-ID: <537FBC64.3040106@cis-india.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear all, The ICANN staff is requesting comments on this report: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/dns-underserved-2014-05-14-en Deadline: 13 June 2014 23:59 UTC Since many of us are interested in issues of development, and many of us keep criticising the US-centricism of ICANN, I thought this would be a particularly useful opportunity to influence ICANN policy. Regards, Pranesh ===== # Brief Overview This is a report about supporting the domain name industry in underserved regions, prepared by ICANN staff for public comment. Comment Period: 14 May 2014 - 13 Jun 2014 23:59 UTC Reply Period: 14 Jun 2014 - 30 Jun 2014 23:59 UTC Original Announcement Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose ICANN is exploring ideas and strategies to help promote the domain name industry in regions that have typically been underserved. In particular, ICANN is looking at existing barriers to Registrar Accreditation and operation and considering ways that these challenges might be mitigated. Public comments on this report will be used to determine next steps to support the domain name industry in underserved regions. As of 16 April 2014, there were 1,010 ICANN-accredited Registrars. Of those, seven are located in Africa. Fourteen are located in the Middle East. Barriers to participation in domain name industry business in regions such as Africa and the Middle East are complex and some cannot be addressed by ICANN without coordination with the greater community. Many of these issues have been recognized and discussed for some time. ICANN staff is therefore seeking input to determine how best to transform this discussion into concrete results. Section II: Background To encourage participation of developing countries to date, ICANN has, for example, created a fellowship program, participated in many regional meetings and increased the availability of translated materials and interpretation services, engendering participation within ICANN. Additionally, in August 2012, ICANN announced a new approach to Africa, with the support of AFRINIC, including a new initiative aimed at increasing African participation and influence within ICANN.1 A working group was created and endorsed by the African community members meeting in Prague. The working group included key players in Internet governance from different regions in Africa to contribute to the development of the new strategy. The working group selected Nii Quaynor of Ghana, a well-respected Internet leader in Africa, to lead its efforts. The working group published its report, Enhanced Registry Registrar Relationships, on 13 July 2013 (see Annex at the end of this report). Members of the domain name industry community in the Middle East community have taken a similar approach. Middle East community members created a working group in early 2013 to develop an ICANN engagement strategy for the Middle East. The Middle East strategy identified domain name industry development as one area where more work needs to be done. ICANN has since co-sponsored a number of DNS Forum events in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.2 ICANN recently held a session on this topic at the March 2014 ICANN meeting in Singapore.3 At the session, ICANN solicited considerable input from attendees about the challenges facing the domain name industry in underserved regions and began discussions to explore potential solutions. 1 See http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10aug12-en.htm 2http://blog.icann.org/2014/02/first-middle-east-dns-forum-overwhelmingly-successful/ ; http://www.internetsociety.org/news/africa-domain-name-system-forum-be-held-durban-south-africa-12-13-july-2013 3http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-dns-underserved Section III: Relevant Resources The attached report [PDF, 601 KB] includes a table that summarizes input that ICANN has received regarding the challenges that face the domain name industry in underserved regions. The table is by no means exhaustive, and ICANN staff welcome input on any issue that you believe poses a barrier to domain name industry growth and participation in underserved regions. The table identifies the relevant issue, notes where the requirement lies in relevant policies or contracts, lists solutions that have been proposed, and explores how such solutions might be implemented. As background, the report also includes the July 2013 report, Enhanced Registry Registrar Relationships, developed by Africa Strategy working group. ICANN Seeks Public Comment: Supporting the DNS Industry in Underserved Regions - -- 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTf7xkAAoJEFUPonS5l6Cpsv8P/RUMiwVJWrCczzUttWVVC9M2 DJy4MEA2VblPMIHOFjSDFR/hIERaDuxqKxjN8Jg4KOkl9Zc6puLJSUw+Yb7VrgYz ZELMmnOLdPIFIa7wOeWwzLPCfSHQNot0mOW5Reo37/OlullYNp4C6LgNsxuGffys HwCwS1P16xPoqkghLjyovpTSns4ULkyNkgt4YEbYwXPfPrCOtNGke8sjG9gHzq9S IUSKi7aH3kASr66ZcfbjufoFkLXQbwt7cO/y3nbvsmzfZz575ot4e+XHl1vwf2gs KQtKmSNupv+OESCAq9SA/3M2PFs37c9+Ip3DdR0n8FhBhYlkOjL5Sw46CYOBJS9+ s4TyBDGCNhLyDqcNPetgN9JGAHyMNgQ+FKAYXPSHoZU17YiyxyA0PnlEh1Pe+pUp 6dBrED8SgW9Qd6mBidGEntnEQtY0rtSHgB/InHcEUzuD716ytgELTNDg5BuwgTfU PfD2CmDV0F1O4MfQKennlmY3XXgYO1+xw6mCbvo3SkTSd5ztuR7Th4KDnDAXdHS4 yuFPX5zf5kIYOBMjTTSxgLYqLiPQFd9CysaShLqDQYtamcFrN9ouX8FLZXrprosy LmodG01CuPT1ftvT9BG1ERJJ1N9WVYIVxBTSEs8fiskgvIsNVWwNTRurF+q3oUfz 5hm2A8pGVVsy+bHeGkhF =IwHi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mshears at cdt.org Thu May 1 10:04:44 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 10:04:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <5360F56C.8020002@cafonso.ca> <53622BC0.1060307@digitaldissidents.org> <5362433D.1020709@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5362547C.9040306@cdt.org> Just to move beyond the "who did what and why" during the somewhat chaotic last moments of NETmundial and focus on what we learned, here are a couple of thoughts: * The pre-day worked very well and we should take those structured approaches more often - there was a real sense of working together and accomplishment * We played a central and constructive role because we contributed fully to the entire process, from the consultations contributing as either platforms or as individual organizations, through the event itself - that consistent engagement is critical in my mind to our success and is a learning for other fora that we engage in * If there was a moment when our engagement broke down a little it was when the text went into the smaller drafting groups - we should have been more available and organized around those committees when they needed wording or assistance * We identified speakers who spoke to issues of concern for which we largely had a common view - an achievement and something we should consider in the future * We had text for many of the key issues - which was critical - but as others have noted, the specificity that was needed by the committees was sometimes lacking - a lesson for next time * The multi-stakeholder approach was largely practiced throughout, with the exception of the last moments where the primacy of governments became apparent. Whether this was a reality of this particular process or not, it reminds us of the importance of reaching out to all stakeholders to understand where their thinking is on critical issues. We should continue to push our positions of course but we also need to know where other stand on the same. We may never see eye to eye with other stakeholders on some/many issues but it is good to understand where they are so we are not as surprised as we were by the NETmundial end game in the future. * We may not get all that we want, but we can get a lot - as we did in Sao Paulo. And this is in part testament to the points above and how well civil society engaged and cooperated. My 2 centavos Matthew On 5/1/2014 9:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > And... > > On May 1, 2014, at 9:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Hi Niels, >> >> On 05/01/2014 08:10 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >>> Dear Carlos, >>> >>> On 04/30/2014 03:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not >>>> included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand >>>> English, this is the paragraph on it: >>>> >>>> "UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a >>>> globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and >>>> accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique >>>> identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely >>>> end-to-end regardless of the lawful content." >>>> >>> This definition allows for charging differentially by user, content, >>> site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of >>> communication. >> It is not a definition -- nobody had said that so far. The recommendation for a principle provides the basis without which your dreams (which are also ours, or at least mine) would not come true. Do you think we would be able to delve into such details in an attempt to build a pluralist consensus document? And this is why we mentioned in the Roadmap the issue is complex and merits further dialogue and recommendations. >> > > We kept asking for specific text. Something the we could work with in drafting. Asked on this list and others, asked at the CS meeting on 22nd. I think I even suggested: > > "Neutrality: The Internet should remain a neutral and open platform, free from discrimination, so as to encourage free expression, the free flow of information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship." > > Not great, but something to argue for. (and it might have been a lever to keep the other creator text out of the document?) > > We looked through the transcripts and all I remember seeing is general statements (we want to see NN mentioned, blah... and those were balanced by others who said there was no place for net neutrality in the documents). Sorry if I missed anything, but we needed text to work with, and needed support. Where we got help, it worked: thanks particularly to Robin, Stephanie, Avri. > > Anyway. A very enjoyable and rewarding process. There are a lot of positives in the documents. > > I'm very grateful to CS for asking me to join the EMC. Thank you, > > Adam > > > > > >> In the Marco Civil, we also recognize the issue is not exhausted, this is why we agreed to insert the possibility of further regulation under the guidance of CGI.br and Anatel. This in itself was a major victory, as the transnational telcos (mostly European) who control the network market in Brazil did not want even the mention of CGI.br anywhere in the document. >> >> Sometimes I think some progressive civil society groups have slipped towards Aristotelian logic -- either we get all or nothing -- forgetting all about political tactics. Unfortunate. >> >> BTW, I would really like to see the list of orgs who signed (or agreed to) the statement. I find it hard to believe that 50-60 orgs were so naïve in grasping the relevance of the moment and the nature of the final document after participating in the event (I assume they all participated?). >> >> And I thank again Stephanie Perrin for understanding that relevance and nature. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >>> So I am not sure it would fall under my definition of network neutrality. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Niels >>> >>> Niels ten Oever >>> Acting Head of Digital >>> >>> Article 19 >>> www.article19.org >>> >>> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri May 23 18:44:33 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 08:44:33 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: <85C8916F-7823-4B7D-A85A-9DD1AE8DA6E7@Malcolm.id.au> References: <85C8916F-7823-4B7D-A85A-9DD1AE8DA6E7@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hi everyone, Just a reminder about this – nominations close in a weeks time! Details below Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering committee election Dear all, As there was general support for the proposed election process that was proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next Best Bits steering committee. a.. Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days b.. Anyone can claim voting rights if they: a.. have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the election being called; and b.. agree to the existing statement of objectives (see http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). c.. Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): a.. Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Europe, North America/Other b.. Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may result in fewer positions filled d.. Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the other. e.. Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system f.. It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. g.. Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, with a 1 year gap before reappointment. h.. Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May. This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us know. There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: a.. Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on the steering committee? b.. That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your strengths lie? c.. Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) d.. Anything else that you wish to communicate. Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group of candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please let us know. -- 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: From joly at punkcast.com Mon May 26 02:40:42 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 02:40:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST TODAY: Finnish Internet Forum Message-ID: This is underway. The current panel - "Quo Vadis Internet?' is the only one in English, but it is looking good. I'll pull it as a highlight, for easy review. Note there is a twitterwall, so participants in the venue will see your tweets. joly posted: "Today, Monday 26 May 2014, the 5th Annual Finnish Internet Forum will take place in Helsinki on May 26 2014. Finnish Internet Forum is a national multi-stakeholder process which discusses Internet-related issues. Its organizers hold an annual meeting and " New post on *ISOC-NY NOTICE BOARD* [image: FIF2014]Today, Monday 26 May 2014, the 5th Annual Finnish Internet Forum will take place in Helsinki The Finnish Internet Forum is a national multi-stakeholder process which discusses Internet-related issues. Its organizers hold an annual meeting and some smaller events throughout the year. This year the forum will cover a wide range of topics, such as the internet governance and the multistakeholder model, the Stakeholder Participation in the Preparation Process of the Information Society Code, Cyber Security and Protection of Privacy in the Digital Age. Participation is open to everyone free of charge. There is a twitter wall in the venue. The forum will be webcast live via the Internet Society Livestream Channel . *What*: Finnish Internet Forum 2014 *Where*: Helsinki, Finland *When*: Monday 26 May 2014 09:00-16:00 EEST | 06:00-13:00 UTC | 02:00-09:00 EDT *Agenda*: http://bit.ly/fif2014agenda *Webcast*: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/FIF2014 *Twitter*: #fiforum Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6675 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon May 26 18:33:03 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 18:33:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] (off-topic) Open Call for Expressions of Interest Message-ID: Dear all, this is slightly off topic, but I thought some of you may have good contacts for this call. So, please share. I am one of the research mentors/advisors of this network. LINK: http://www.oer-impact.net/Pages/default.aspx *PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT: Open Call for Expressions of Interest to conduct studies on the Impact of Open Educational Resources on Education and Training in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa* The Coordinators of the Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) programme will be calling for research proposals for funding, on the theme of Impact of OER in the developing regions of Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. This is a Pre-Announcement to invite you to submit your expression of interest. Your expression of interest will serve to assist us in gauging the range of research interests within the thematic of OER Impact Studies in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as the budget level needed for carrying out OER impact research. This Pre-Announcement is also to maximize the lead time for you to prepare your full impact study proposal for submission when the actual Call for Grant Applications is launched. Guidelines for Submitting Your Expression of Interest (i) Abstract: Submit an Abstract of up to 300 words, indicating your key research question and main research method. Indicate a lump sum budget that you would need to conduct your research. We are tentatively setting the upper limit of the budget for each grant application at fifty thousand Canadian dollars. If you feel that your research warrants a higher budget amount, please justify it in your expression of interest. You may change the ideas stated in your Abstract, when making your application in the final Call for Grant Applications. As such, your expression of interest is not binding. (ii) Scope of Education Sectors: Formal education, informal and non-formal learning at all levels – primary, secondary, tertiary, life-long learning. (iii) Who May Apply and Territories for Study: Researchers world-wide are invited to study impacts of OER usage in the territories of Asia and/or Sub-Saharan Africa that are eligible for official development assistance. Researchers must demonstrate ability to access the research sites. (iv) Multidisciplinary Collaboration: North-South partnerships and inter-institutional partnerships within territories are encouraged so that the research may be strengthened by multi-disciplinary skill-sets through collaboration. (v) Study Duration: Up to 18 months (vi) Language of Submission: English (vii) Last Date of Submission: Last date for submission of expression of interest is 30th June 2014 Please e-mail your expression of interest, with your name, institutional affiliation and contact information to: *Pre-Announcement at oer-impact.net * The ROER4D programme, which is supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada and the U.K. Department for International Development , is managed by two universities: the University of Cape Town administers the component on OER research and the Wawasan Open Universityin Malaysia administers the component on OER impact studies. By way of submitting an expression of interest under this Pre-Announcement, you consent to our right to cancel this competitive Call process at any time without prior notice. No acknowledgement of your expression of interest will be made. -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue May 27 01:41:39 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:41:39 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election Message-ID: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> Hi Folks, Just posting this again to remind you that nominations close on May 31 – just a few days away. To date, the only candidates are Jeremy Malcolm Carolina Rossini Andrew Puddephatt Nnenna Nwakanma Marianne Franklin has also been nominated but has not yet accepted. So – with only a few days to go, we still need more candidates. Most people are self-nominating, so by all means put your name forward if you would like to help Best Bits in this way. Best Bits has done a terrific job for civil society, particularly with its pre IGF and pre NetMundial conferences, and its sign on statements. This is largely due to the great efforts of last years steering committee. I would urge people to put their names forward. Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering committee election Dear all, As there was general support for the proposed election process that was proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next Best Bits steering committee. a.. Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days b.. Anyone can claim voting rights if they: a.. have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the election being called; and b.. agree to the existing statement of objectives (see http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). c.. Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): a.. Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Europe, North America/Other b.. Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may result in fewer positions filled d.. Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the other. e.. Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system f.. It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. g.. Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, with a 1 year gap before reappointment. h.. Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May. This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us know. There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: a.. Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on the steering committee? b.. That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your strengths lie? c.. Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) d.. Anything else that you wish to communicate. Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group of candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please let us know. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 204 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue May 27 02:17:31 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 02:17:31 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> Message-ID: I had the impression Jeremy also nominated a bunch of people On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Just posting this again to remind you that nominations close on May 31 – > just a few days away. > > To date, the only candidates are > > Jeremy Malcolm > Carolina Rossini > Andrew Puddephatt > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Marianne Franklin has also been nominated but has not yet accepted. > > So – with only a few days to go, we still need more candidates. Most > people are self-nominating, so by all means put your name forward if you > would like to help Best Bits in this way. > > Best Bits has done a terrific job for civil society, particularly with its > pre IGF and pre NetMundial conferences, and its sign on statements. This is > largely due to the great efforts of last years steering committee. I would > urge people to put their names forward. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM > *To:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering > committee election > > Dear all, > > As there was general support for the proposed election process that was > proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been > made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next > Best Bits steering committee. > > - Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days > - Anyone can claim voting rights if they: > - have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the > election being called; and > - agree to the existing statement of objectives (see > http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). > - Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each > separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): > - Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, > Europe, North America/Other > - Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may > result in fewer positions filled > - Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical > position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the > other. > - Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system > - It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of > each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a > broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election > notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. > - Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, > with a 1 year gap before reappointment. > - Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. > > *Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May.* > This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning > officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as > the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian > taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us > know. > > There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a > suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: > > > - Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on > the steering committee? > - That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote > to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of > participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, > improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your > strengths lie? > - Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at > http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at > http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in > stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) > - Anything else that you wish to communicate. > > > Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group of > candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please let > us know. > > -- > 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 > -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue May 27 02:59:37 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 16:59:37 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hi Carolina, Jeremy’s relevant paragraph is copied below, where he nominated two people. I approached both. So far Nnenna has indicated her willingness to accept nomination but I have not yet heard from Marianne. Paragraph from Jeremy’s message follows. “I am also nominating Nnenna Nwakanma and Marianne Franklin for election, each for their respective regional positions (Africa and Europe) and for the non-geographical positions. They are among the existing interim steering committee members who also include Andrew Puddephatt (who has just sent his nomination), Anja Kovacs, Deborah Brown, Joana Varon Ferraz and Valeria Betancourt - and actually I fully support the election of all of them too, but I'll leave it for others (or themselves) to send their nominations.” Ian From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:17 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election I had the impression Jeremy also nominated a bunch of people On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Folks, Just posting this again to remind you that nominations close on May 31 – just a few days away. To date, the only candidates are Jeremy Malcolm Carolina Rossini Andrew Puddephatt Nnenna Nwakanma Marianne Franklin has also been nominated but has not yet accepted. So – with only a few days to go, we still need more candidates. Most people are self-nominating, so by all means put your name forward if you would like to help Best Bits in this way. Best Bits has done a terrific job for civil society, particularly with its pre IGF and pre NetMundial conferences, and its sign on statements. This is largely due to the great efforts of last years steering committee. I would urge people to put their names forward. Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering committee election Dear all, As there was general support for the proposed election process that was proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next Best Bits steering committee. a.. Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days b.. Anyone can claim voting rights if they: a.. have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the election being called; and b.. agree to the existing statement of objectives (see http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). c.. Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): a.. Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Europe, North America/Other b.. Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may result in fewer positions filled d.. Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the other. e.. Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system f.. It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. g.. Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, with a 1 year gap before reappointment. h.. Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May. This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us know. There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: a.. Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on the steering committee? b.. That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your strengths lie? c.. Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) d.. Anything else that you wish to communicate. Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group of candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please let us know. -- 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 -- -- Carolina Rossini Vice President, International Policy Public Knowledge http://www.publicknowledge.org/ + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue May 27 03:30:38 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 03:30:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST: Stockholm Internet Forum #sif14 @fxinternet #netfreedom Message-ID: This has just started. It is promised to be archived on YouTube but I have no information on that at this time. Will follow up. joly posted: "Stockholm Internet Forum 2014 takes place Tuesday May 27 2014 - Wednesday May 28 2014 in Stockholm, Sweden. The Forum, founded in 2012, aims to bring together policymakers, civil society representatives, activists, business representatives and technical c" [image: SIF 14]*Stockholm Internet Forum 2014*takes place *Tuesday May 27 2014 - Wednesday May 28 2014* in Stockholm, Sweden. The Forum, founded in 2012, aims to bring together policymakers, civil society representatives, activists, business representatives and technical community representatives to deepen the discussions on how freedom and openness on the internet can promote economic and social development worldwide. The theme of the 2014 Forum is *“Internet — privacy, transparency, surveillance and control”*. The format is a plenary followed by three breakout sessions. All 3 are being webcast live via Bambuser. Stockholm is UTC+2, thus 6 hours ahead of NYC. *What*: Stockholm Internet Forum 2014 *Where*: Stockholm, Sweden *When*: Tuesday May 27 2014 - Wednesday May 28 2014 *Agenda*: http://www.stockholminternetforum.se/agenda/ *Webcast*: Main: http://bambuser.com/v/4656014 | Rm2: http://bambuser.com/v/3611792 | Rm3: http://bambuser.com/v/3611585 *Twitter*: #sif14 | @fxinternet Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6688 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue May 27 04:08:45 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 04:08:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> Message-ID: perfect :-) On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Carolina, > > > Jeremy’s relevant paragraph is copied below, where he nominated two > people. I approached both. So far Nnenna has indicated her willingness to > accept nomination but I have not yet heard from Marianne. > > Paragraph from Jeremy’s message follows. > > “I am also nominating Nnenna Nwakanma and Marianne Franklin for election, > each for their respective regional positions (Africa and Europe) and for > the non-geographical positions. They are among the existing interim > steering committee members who also include Andrew Puddephatt (who has just > sent his nomination), Anja Kovacs, Deborah Brown, Joana Varon Ferraz and > Valeria Betancourt - and actually I fully support the election of all of > them too, but I'll leave it for others (or themselves) to send their > nominations.” > > Ian > > *From:* Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:17 PM > *To:* Ian Peter > *Cc:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering > committee election > > I had the impression Jeremy also nominated a bunch of people > > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> >> Just posting this again to remind you that nominations close on May 31 – >> just a few days away. >> >> To date, the only candidates are >> >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Carolina Rossini >> Andrew Puddephatt >> Nnenna Nwakanma >> >> Marianne Franklin has also been nominated but has not yet accepted. >> >> So – with only a few days to go, we still need more candidates. Most >> people are self-nominating, so by all means put your name forward if you >> would like to help Best Bits in this way. >> >> Best Bits has done a terrific job for civil society, particularly with >> its pre IGF and pre NetMundial conferences, and its sign on statements. >> This is largely due to the great efforts of last years steering committee. >> I would urge people to put their names forward. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm >> *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM >> *To:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering >> committee election >> >> Dear all, >> >> As there was general support for the proposed election process that was >> proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been >> made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next >> Best Bits steering committee. >> >> - Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days >> - Anyone can claim voting rights if they: >> - have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the >> election being called; and >> - agree to the existing statement of objectives (see >> http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). >> - Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each >> separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): >> - Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, >> Europe, North America/Other >> - Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which >> may result in fewer positions filled >> - Candidates can run for a regional position or for a >> non-geographical position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one >> position or the other. >> - Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system >> - It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of >> each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a >> broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election >> notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. >> - Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, >> with a 1 year gap before reappointment. >> - Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. >> >> *Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May.* >> This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning >> officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as >> the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian >> taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us >> know. >> >> There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a >> suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: >> >> >> - Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on >> the steering committee? >> - That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote >> to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of >> participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, >> improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your >> strengths lie? >> - Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at >> http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at >> http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in >> stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) >> - Anything else that you wish to communicate. >> >> >> Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group >> of candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please >> let us know. >> >> -- >> 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 $3}' >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended >> to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see >> http://jere.my/l/pgp. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > -- > *Carolina Rossini * > *Vice President, International Policy* > *Public Knowledge* > *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * > + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From imran at IGFPAK.org Tue May 27 06:37:58 2014 From: imran at IGFPAK.org (Imran) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:37:58 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> Message-ID: <008401cf7997$bb6959e0$323c0da0$@IGFPAK.org> Dear Best Bits Fellows, With reference to recent call for the nomination for the election of Best Bits Steering Committee, I would like submit self-nomination for Asia Pacific region and for the non-geographical position. I support Best Bits policy and support related activities. I belongs to a small city of Pakistan and have MBA (MIS) degrees. With the aim of formation of a civilized multi lingual Internet to serve national, regional and global community members, I spare some time to serve in the community for their awareness, betterment and improvements and with the same interest, I am also participating in policy developments processes like ICANN’s Fast Track for IDN ccTLDs, new gTLDs, .PK ccTLD issues, .پاکستان (.Pakistan IDN ccTLD in Urdu), ICT4Development, National Technology Foresight Project (Ministry of Science & Technology Pakistan) and Cyber Crimes Law of Pakistan. I initiated Linguistic Internet Council to unite Linguistic Internet User Communities and to form linguistic Internet layers with excellence. I also founded Urdu Internet Society (UISoc.org) and a working group ‘IGF Pak’. We conducted IGFPAK-2011 Conference along with IGF Remote Hubs 2011 & 2012 at International Islamic University, Islamabad. I am working for the formation of global consortium for Civilized Internet for Next Generation/ Innocent Minds and have successfully conducted a workshop on ‘Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters’ at APrIGF 2013 Seoul Conference http://igfpak.org/?p=410. Detail of the workshop of "Governance for the Internet of Kids, Teenagers and Youngsters" is available at url http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-32/ & http://2013.rigf.asia/day3/ . Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah Founder & Executive Member Linguistic Internet Council, Urdu Internet Society Internet Governance Forum of Pakistan [imran at uisoc.org] [imran at IGFPAK.org] [+92-300-4130617] From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:00 PM To: Carolina Rossini Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election Hi Carolina, Jeremy’s relevant paragraph is copied below, where he nominated two people. I approached both. So far Nnenna has indicated her willingness to accept nomination but I have not yet heard from Marianne. Paragraph from Jeremy’s message follows. “I am also nominating Nnenna Nwakanma and Marianne Franklin for election, each for their respective regional positions (Africa and Europe) and for the non-geographical positions. They are among the existing interim steering committee members who also include Andrew Puddephatt (who has just sent his nomination), Anja Kovacs, Deborah Brown, Joana Varon Ferraz and Valeria Betancourt - and actually I fully support the election of all of them too, but I'll leave it for others (or themselves) to send their nominations.” Ian From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:17 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election I had the impression Jeremy also nominated a bunch of people On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Folks, Just posting this again to remind you that nominations close on May 31 – just a few days away. To date, the only candidates are Jeremy Malcolm Carolina Rossini Andrew Puddephatt Nnenna Nwakanma Marianne Franklin has also been nominated but has not yet accepted. So – with only a few days to go, we still need more candidates. Most people are self-nominating, so by all means put your name forward if you would like to help Best Bits in this way. Best Bits has done a terrific job for civil society, particularly with its pre IGF and pre NetMundial conferences, and its sign on statements. This is largely due to the great efforts of last years steering committee. I would urge people to put their names forward. Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering committee election Dear all, As there was general support for the proposed election process that was proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next Best Bits steering committee. * Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days * Anyone can claim voting rights if they: * have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the election being called; and * agree to the existing statement of objectives (see http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). * Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): * Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Europe, North America/Other * Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may result in fewer positions filled * Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the other. * Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system * It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. * Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, with a 1 year gap before reappointment. * Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May. This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us know. There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: * Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on the steering committee? * That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your strengths lie? * Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) * Anything else that you wish to communicate. Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group of candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please let us know. -- 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 -- -- Carolina Rossini Vice President, International Policy Public Knowledge http://www.publicknowledge.org/ + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Tue May 27 07:13:11 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 07:13:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> Message-ID: <53847347.4020502@acm.org> On 27-May-14 01:41, Ian Peter wrote: > Most people are self-nominating, so by all means put your name forward > if you would like to help Best Bits in this way. Someday, not today, I would like to put this topic on the table for future elections. I think that self-nominations should not be favored. I think that people should be able to find someone to nominate them and someone to second them before they run for something. avri From anriette at apc.org Thu May 1 10:19:21 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 16:19:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <53622767.3080206@wzb.eu> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> <53622767.3080206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <536257E9.8070800@apc.org> Dear all Some responses to Jeanette below. On 01/05/2014 12:52, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Ian, > > the only cs people I could see against the light directed towards the > stage during the closing ceremony where those who didn't get up when > most most people in the room had risen and applauded process and/or > outcome. I think many CS people were quite confused about what was going on. Some did stand up, others were anxious about the statement to be read. I was not part of the group that developed the statement, but I did chat with Niels and Stephanie for a bit. When I walked back from the drafting many people approached me to say they hear civil society is planning a walkout. That would have been a mista Civil society gained much of its demands, but we did also lose ground on some points. While I did not agree fully with the statement or endorse it online, I don't think we should regret it. A more nuanced response, that also included positive comments, and ideally more intense but targeted critique, and that was based on a thorough reading of the outcome document would have been better.. but there was not much time. All in all, I think expressing criticism was better than simply going along with the general rapture. Yes, we could have been smarter in how we did it, but we did make it clear we had concerns, and that is important. > Less than 30 minutes before the closing ceremony, both statement and > process where about to collapse due to a few governments who weren't > willing to support the principle section of the outcome document. > These governments hadn't been part of the editing process and probably > hadn't monitored it either. They looked at the changes being made to > the draft document some hours before and simply said no to some of > what they saw on the screen, or wanted text included that they didn't > see on that screen. In this situation it occurred to me how very risky > the process was that we had sketched out earlier that week. Board and > committees simply hoped that the outcome would be legitimate and > acceptable to the majority of attendees. Jeanette, some governments had been part of the editing process - directly and indirectly, and had monitored it very closely. As a drafting group we negotiated and struggled through a difficult process, and we knew that some of the text included did challenge what some government stakeholders wanted. We - Markus and myself as co-chairs - chose to err on the side of what seemed to be the "mood of the room" on some of these issues. Possibly this was a mistake, and we could have compromised more. I personally might have erred in defending some text - submissions on intermediary liability and surveillance - too vigorously. But I felt that avoiding controversy, when there were issues such as mass surveillance which very many people had very strong feelings about, would not do justice to the process. I think if we had more time, we could have made use of careful wordsmithing in ways that would have overcome some of the disagreement. We did manage to get consensus, more or less, treatment of network neutrality with the Brazilian government representatives graciously agreeing to descriptive text in the principles section of the document and use of the term network neutrality in the roadmap section of the document. > > While more and more government reps expressed their discont and the > meeting was running over time, I tried to imagine what a failure of > netmundial would mean for the future evolution of the multistakeholder > process. For years to come, I thought, we would be stuck with the IG > truism that one can have either multistakeholder and chairman reports > or more specific outcomes BUT NOT BOTH. We would have faced an > agonizing stalemate for a long time despite all the goodwill and > efforts to push this fragile baby forward. If we had ended with yet > another chairman's report, netmundial would have be interpreted by > many as a confirmation of the limits of multistakeholder processes. Markus and I left the room and as co chairs working with the scribe we made the changes that were demanded. We did our best to not lose all of the spirit of the original text. While I also felt strongly that getting agreed text was important and that a chairman's report would have been a HUGE HUGE disappointment, I also see this differently. In several ways: 1) Why do we not see the fact that the many governments who did not speak up but who did not support the document as failure? Is support from those at the Executive High Level Committee enough to give this document the status it needs for us to use it going forward? What about the many other governments that did not support the text, even if they did not speak up? 2) Does this mean that MS processes must always end in consensus? I question that. Yes, I agree, this process needed to reach agreement on principles. We need this going forward with democratising governance and making sure that the internet is preserved as a common resource. But surely we will never always agree? In other words, we need to create space in our MS processes for how to deal with disagreement. And if this disagreement is always going to be resolved by civil society having to be the group that makes the concessions, we need to think very carefully of what we are gaining, and consider how these processes will retain their credibility. I respect the views of those governments and other stakeholders who had difficulty with aspects of the text. What I would have liked would have been more debate and discussion, and, with more time (which I know we did not have) spent on reaching agreement, and if that still failed, some recognition of the differences in views and the reasons for them. In this sense a fuller report of the event would be very valuable. > > I was so relieved when we achieved a compromise and prevented the > process from failing! And this is why I found it pretty hard to listen > to the cs statement and watch you all sitting their with your arms > folded and not even a little smile on your faces. > The only person who sensed the split between cs in the audience and cs > on the stage was Anja. After some hesitation she got up. I felt like > hugging her, and I wholeheartedly did after the closure. I think this is important. I believe that even if one is critical, it is so important to respect and value the effort that people put into the process. And NETMundial took a huge amount of effort. I joined this process only at the end, when we were already in Sao Paulo as I was invited to be a co-chair of principles. What was clear to me from the meetings I attended (late into the night) was how difficult it was to 'get the process right' and how hard people tried. Also the Brazilian government and CGI.br people and everyone else involved in the EMC and the secretariat. So big thank you to Adam, Jeanette, Marilia, Joana, Carlos Afonso and all the other people who worked so hard to make sure civil society views and participation featured prominently in the process. I think you succeeded. > > I guess what I want to say is that it a bit of expectation management > among civil society wouldn't hurt. This includes putting outcomes such > as the Sao Paulo statement into perspective while they are negotiated. > Only a few years ago we were unable to get consensus for IGF main > sessions focussing on human rights. Plus, is is still open if we will > ever move beyond a chair man's report at the IGF. Recent reflections > by cs people on netmundial move into this direction. Agree. But we should also stay on our toes, and keep government and business on theirs. Anriette > jeanette > > Am 30.04.14 21:44, schrieb Ian Peter: >> The Niels statement was drawn up quickly by a group of about 30 of us >> sitting in the CS quarters of the conference hall after the changed text >> was leaked showing the last minute changes after the text left the two >> drafting committees. >> >> Some of us would have gone further. Some were considering a walk out. >> The text was probably indicative of a more balanced approach given the >> mood at the time. >> >> With a bit of distance from the disappointment at those changes, perhaps >> many feel differently. But it was an honest attempt to capture the mood >> at the time and I am personally glad civil society said something rather >> than nothing. >> >> But with a bit of distance from the event perhaps many of us have other >> thoughts. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake >> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:31 PM >> To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Cc: Andrew Puddephatt ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 >> outcome text open for endorsement >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. >>> >> >> >> Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the >> impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to >> speak and who did they say they represented? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of >>>> positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole >>>> process. I can’t support this statement >>>> >>>> Andrew Puddephatt >>>> Global Partners Digital >>>> Andrew at gp-digital.org >>>> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >>>> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >>>> To: "" >>>> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome >>>> text open for endorsement >>>> >>>> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text >>>> was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society >>>> representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever >>>> from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >>>> >>>> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil >>>> society response later. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue May 27 13:54:26 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 17:54:26 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] I accepted a nomination Message-ID: Dear all I got a mail from Ian saying someone has nominated me to be on the BB steering. I replied and said "Okay, fine". I'm not sure about any particular info I should give. There is stuff on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nnenna_Nwakanma and on the site of Web Foundation: http://webfoundation.org/about/executive-team/#nnenna-nwakanma-africa-regional-coordinator I am better at responding to questions, when asked. I'm Africa. N -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue May 27 14:23:28 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 21:23:28 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: <53847347.4020502@acm.org> References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> <53847347.4020502@acm.org> Message-ID: Actually I think self nomination with a compulsory reference of 1 or 2 in support is a more effective approach. Especially for volunteer positions like that of bestbits. Thanks Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 27 May 2014 14:13, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > > On 27-May-14 01:41, Ian Peter wrote: > > Most people are self-nominating, so by all means put your name forward > > if you would like to help Best Bits in this way. > > Someday, not today, I would like to put this topic on the table for > future elections. I think that self-nominations should not be favored. > I think that people should be able to find someone to nominate them and > someone to second them before they run for something. > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue May 27 14:42:28 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:42:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?fyi_-_RUSSIA_=E2=80=93_CHINA=3A_STRATEGIC_EC?= =?UTF-8?Q?ONOMIC_PARTNERSHIP?= Message-ID: RUSSIA – CHINA: STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP - Broadcast - Facts for Insight - Highlights - Verbatim report Several dozen joint commercial projects of an unprecedented scale are being implemented in both Russia and China. What would enable a more effective project-based approach in the formation of a strategic economic partnership between Russia and China, including in engineering and the high-tech field? http://forumspb.com/en/2014/sections/30/materials/229/sessions/816#translation -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Wed May 28 13:13:24 2014 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 20:13:24 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering | draft-iab-filtering-considerations-06 Message-ID: <53861934.90708@cis-india.org> Dear all, Since at the BestBits meeting in Bali people expressed both a need and an interest in following technical discussions where they impact civil liberties. Here is one such instance: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-filtering-considerations/?include_text=1 Unfortunately, given my current commitments I can't be a liaison for this as I had then hoped to, but I am would be happy to continue flagging such developments here. Regards, Pranesh -- 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: From arbih2002us at yahoo.com Wed May 28 20:04:23 2014 From: arbih2002us at yahoo.com (arbih2002us at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 00:04:23 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> <53847347.4020502@acm.org>, Message-ID: <551461.10631.bm@smtp130.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> I agree with Seun since these are voluntary positions. Avri doesn’t really tell us what his problem is with self nominations Sent from Windows Mail From: Seun Ojedeji Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎27‎ ‎May‎ ‎2014 ‎19‎:‎23 To: avri Cc: Actually I think self nomination with a compulsory reference of 1 or 2 in support is a more effective approach. Especially for volunteer positions like that of bestbits. Thanks Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 27 May 2014 14:13, "Avri Doria" wrote: On 27-May-14 01:41, Ian Peter wrote: > Most people are self-nominating, so by all means put your name forward > if you would like to help Best Bits in this way. Someday, not today, I would like to put this topic on the table for future elections. I think that self-nominations should not be favored. I think that people should be able to find someone to nominate them and someone to second them before they run for something. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Wed May 28 20:47:31 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 17:47:31 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Free_Speech_Groups_Issue_New_Guide_to?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_the_International_=93Necessary_=26_Proportionate_Princi?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ples=94?= Message-ID: <538683A3.8010909@eff.org> Dear all Find in the link below the legal background paper of the Principles. You can download the paper from the site: https://necessaryandproportionate.org/LegalAnalysis EFF and ARTICLE 19 Urges Governments to Preserve Fundamental Freedoms in the Age of Mass Surveillance San Francisco and London – As the global debate over the intelligence programs revealed by Edward Snowden approaches its first anniversary, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and ARTICLE 19 today published a new legal analysis of the Necessary & Proportionate Principles, a guiding framework for countries to apply international human rights law to communications surveillance. Currently, there are few legal or technological constraints on international monitoring, data gathering, and use of digital communications. This report serves as important context and background as states around the world discuss the future of privacy. "As our everyday interactions, activities and communications now emit a continuous stream of revealing information, the question has become: how do we preserve fundamental freedoms in the digital age?” EFF International Rights Director Katitza Rodriguez said. “This paper explains how and why we must rein in unchecked surveillance state at home and abroad and protect the freedoms of everyone, regardless of citizenship or statelessness." Thomas Hughes, executive director of ARTICLE 19, added: "Mass surveillance violates our rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Almost a year after the Snowden revelations, little to no progress has been made in ensuring that surveillance practices meet international legal standards. This report shows that mass surveillance laws must be overhauled as a matter of urgency." The Necessary & Proportionate Principles were launched in July 2013 after a year of consultation between privacy advocates and technology experts, and have since gathered momentum across the globe and in the United Nations itself. More than 400 organizations and 300,000 individuals have endorsed the principles, which articulate how unchecked surveillance power can threaten privacy, association and free expression The background paper: https://necessaryandproportionate.org/LegalAnalysis For the principles: Necessaryandproportionate.org/text About the Electronic Frontier Foundation: The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading organization protecting civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, we defend free speech online, fight illegal surveillance, promote the rights of digital innovators, and work to ensure that the rights and freedoms we enjoy are enhanced, rather than eroded, as our use of technology grows. EFF is a member-supported organization. Find out more at https://www.eff.org. About ARTICLE 19 ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organization that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of information. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. ARTICLE 19 monitors threats to freedom of expression in different regions of the world, as well as national and global trends and develops long-term strategies to address them and advocates for the implementation of the highest standards of freedom of expression, nationally and globally. Contact: Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org Siobhan Sheerin Press Officer ARTICLE 19 siobhan at article19.org -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 884 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu May 29 23:27:03 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 13:27:03 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] LAST REMINDER! Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> Message-ID: <702A5F22AABD44B28712B0B97F1D0678@Toshiba> Hi Folks, This is a last reminder that nominations close on May 31 – time now to send in your nomination if you have not already done so To date, the candidates are Jeremy Malcolm Carolina Rossini Andrew Puddephatt Nnenna Nwakanma Marianne Franklin Imran Shah So – we still need more candidates. Best Bits has done a terrific job for civil society, particularly with its pre IGF and pre NetMundial conferences, and its sign on statements. This is largely due to the great efforts of last years steering committee. I would urge people to put their names forward. Ian Peter From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering committee election Dear all, As there was general support for the proposed election process that was proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next Best Bits steering committee. a.. Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days b.. Anyone can claim voting rights if they: a.. have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the election being called; and b.. agree to the existing statement of objectives (see http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). c.. Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): a.. Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Europe, North America/Other b.. Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may result in fewer positions filled d.. Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the other. e.. Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system f.. It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. g.. Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, with a 1 year gap before reappointment. h.. Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May. This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us know. There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: a.. Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on the steering committee? b.. That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your strengths lie? c.. Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) d.. Anything else that you wish to communicate. Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group of candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please let us know. -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri May 30 05:35:11 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:35:11 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Friday 20 June London meeting between ICANN & non-ICANN civil society References: Message-ID: <25457BBE-01A5-4561-B492-E06D1E3729DD@gmail.com> Hello If anyone in BB land who’s not been involved in ICANN is contemplating coming to the London meeting for a look around, we would like to invite you to join a conversation with civil society colleagues who are active in the space. In addition, if anyone knows others who might be interested, please feel free to have them ping me and/or jean-jacques.sahel at icann.org. There will be a lot going on in London that could be of interest—a government high level meeting, multiple NCUC/NCSG meetings probably to include an extended privacy session, At Large’s week-long ATLAS conference on IG and related, ICANN-organized sessions on IANA, globalization, accountability….it will be very full week. Best, Bill > > Hello, > > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will hold its 50th public meeting at the Hilton London Metropole Hotel, 225 Edgware Road, on 22 - 26 June 2014. We are writing to invite you to participate in a pre-event to be held at the meeting site on Friday 20 June from 16:30-19:00. > > The workshop, Civil Society in ICANN and Internet Governance, will provide an opportunity for open and vigorous dialogue between public interest advocates who are active both within and outside the ICANN community. From within ICANN will be members of the Noncommercial Users Constituency www.ncuc.org , which for over a decade has been the voice of civil society in ICANN’s policy processes on generic top level domain names and related matters (see attached flyer). From outside the ICANN community we hope to have participants from advocacy and research organizations based in the UK and beyond who are involved in human rights, privacy protection, freedom of expression, access to knowledge, development, and related issues. > > The agenda would be to discuss items such as: > > · The role of ICANN in the rapidly changing Internet governance ecosystem; > · ICANN’s current drive to become a more globalized organization; > · The importance of ICANN’s policies for public interest advocates working on diverse Internet issues; > · How civil society works within ICANN’s structures, and how interested actors can get involved; > · Brief overview of the ICANN meeting week, highlights of key debates. > > The workshop will from 16:30-18:15, and be followed by a networking reception from 18:15-19:00. A more detailed agenda will be shared closer to the date. If you would like to join us, please confirm your attendance via email to Mr. Jean-Jacques Sahel < jean-jacques.sahel at icann.org>. > > Finally, also please note that participation in the ICANN meeting itself is free of charge and open to the public, and that newcomers are heartily welcomed to attend. The 50th meeting will be a particularly important one, with governments organizing a High Level policy event on Monday 23rd, civil society and other groups holding Constituency Day meetings on Tuesday 24th, and a wide range of workshops and plenary discussions on ICANN globalization and other pressing issues occurring on Wednesday 25th and Thursday 26th. The evolving agenda and registration are available at http://meetings.icann.org/icann50. > > Thank you for considering this invitation, we look forward to hearing from you. > > Best > > > William J. Drake > University of Zurich & Chair, > the Noncommercial Users Constituency > > Jean-Jacques Sahel > Vice President of Stakeholder Engagement for Europe, ICANN > > > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > From valeriab at apc.org Fri May 30 10:33:21 2014 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:33:21 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] LAST REMINDER! Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: <702A5F22AABD44B28712B0B97F1D0678@Toshiba> References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> <702A5F22AABD44B28712B0B97F1D0678@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear all, We would like to nominate Deborah Brown. Best, Valeria El 29/05/2014, a las 22:27, Ian Peter escribió: > > Hi Folks, > > This is a last reminder that nominations close on May 31 – time now to send in your nomination if you have not already done so > > To date, the candidates are > > Jeremy Malcolm > Carolina Rossini > Andrew Puddephatt > Nnenna Nwakanma > Marianne Franklin > Imran Shah > > > So – we still need more candidates. > > Best Bits has done a terrific job for civil society, particularly with its pre IGF and pre NetMundial conferences, and its sign on statements. This is largely due to the great efforts of last years steering committee. I would urge people to put their names forward. > > Ian Peter > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM > To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering committee election > > Dear all, > > As there was general support for the proposed election process that was proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next Best Bits steering committee. > Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days > Anyone can claim voting rights if they: > have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the election being called; and > agree to the existing statement of objectives (see http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). > Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): > Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Europe, North America/Other > Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may result in fewer positions filled > Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the other. > Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system > It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. > Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, with a 1 year gap before reappointment. > Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. > Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May. This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us know. > > There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: > > Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on the steering committee? > That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your strengths lie? > Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) > Anything else that you wish to communicate. > > Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group of candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please let us know. > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Fri May 30 10:44:27 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=C3=B3mez?=) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:44:27 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] LAST REMINDER! Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> <702A5F22AABD44B28712B0B97F1D0678@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to nominate Julian Casasbuenas. Colnodo. Colombia Best regards, 2014-05-30 9:33 GMT-05:00 Valeria Betancourt : > Dear all, > > We would like to nominate Deborah Brown. > > Best, > > Valeria > > El 29/05/2014, a las 22:27, Ian Peter escribió: > > > Hi Folks, > > This is a last reminder that nominations close on May 31 – time now to > send in your nomination if you have not already done so > > To date, the candidates are > > Jeremy Malcolm > Carolina Rossini > Andrew Puddephatt > Nnenna Nwakanma > Marianne Franklin > Imran Shah > > > So – we still need more candidates. > > Best Bits has done a terrific job for civil society, particularly with its > pre IGF and pre NetMundial conferences, and its sign on statements. This is > largely due to the great efforts of last years steering committee. I would > urge people to put their names forward. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM > *To:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering > committee election > > Dear all, > > As there was general support for the proposed election process that was > proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been > made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next > Best Bits steering committee. > > - Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days > - Anyone can claim voting rights if they: > - have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the > election being called; and > - agree to the existing statement of objectives (see > http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). > - Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each > separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): > - Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, > Europe, North America/Other > - Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may > result in fewer positions filled > - Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical > position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the > other. > - Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system > - It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of > each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a > broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election > notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. > - Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, > with a 1 year gap before reappointment. > - Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. > > *Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May.* > This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning > officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as > the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian > taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us > know. > > There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a > suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: > > > - Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on > the steering committee? > - That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote > to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of > participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, > improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your > strengths lie? > - Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at > http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at > http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in > stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) > - Anything else that you wish to communicate. > > > Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group of > candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please let > us know. > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet presidencia at acui.co @amedinagomez Skype amedinagomez Celular 3118689626 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu May 1 10:37:52 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 22:37:52 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering committee election Message-ID: <85C8916F-7823-4B7D-A85A-9DD1AE8DA6E7@Malcolm.id.au> Dear all, As there was general support for the proposed election process that was proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next Best Bits steering committee. Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days Anyone can claim voting rights if they: have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the election being called; and agree to the existing statement of objectives (see http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Europe, North America/Other Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may result in fewer positions filled Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the other. Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, with a 1 year gap before reappointment. Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May. This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us know. There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on the steering committee? That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your strengths lie? Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) Anything else that you wish to communicate. Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group of candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please let us know. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From squ24n at gmail.com Fri May 30 11:55:15 2014 From: squ24n at gmail.com (Borami Kim) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 00:55:15 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] LAST REMINDER! Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> <702A5F22AABD44B28712B0B97F1D0678@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to nominate Byoung-il Oh, South Korea. Thanks, Borami Kim 2014-05-30 23:44 GMT+09:00 Antonio Medina Gómez : > Dear all, > I would like to nominate Julian Casasbuenas. Colnodo. Colombia > > Best regards, > > > > 2014-05-30 9:33 GMT-05:00 Valeria Betancourt : > > Dear all, >> >> We would like to nominate Deborah Brown. >> >> Best, >> >> Valeria >> >> El 29/05/2014, a las 22:27, Ian Peter escribió: >> >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> This is a last reminder that nominations close on May 31 – time now to >> send in your nomination if you have not already done so >> >> To date, the candidates are >> >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Carolina Rossini >> Andrew Puddephatt >> Nnenna Nwakanma >> Marianne Franklin >> Imran Shah >> >> >> So – we still need more candidates. >> >> Best Bits has done a terrific job for civil society, particularly with >> its pre IGF and pre NetMundial conferences, and its sign on statements. >> This is largely due to the great efforts of last years steering committee. >> I would urge people to put their names forward. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm >> *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM >> *To:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering >> committee election >> >> Dear all, >> >> As there was general support for the proposed election process that was >> proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been >> made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next >> Best Bits steering committee. >> >> - Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days >> - Anyone can claim voting rights if they: >> - have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the >> election being called; and >> - agree to the existing statement of objectives (see >> http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). >> - Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each >> separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): >> - Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, >> Europe, North America/Other >> - Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which >> may result in fewer positions filled >> - Candidates can run for a regional position or for a >> non-geographical position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one >> position or the other. >> - Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system >> - It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of >> each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a >> broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election >> notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. >> - Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, >> with a 1 year gap before reappointment. >> - Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. >> >> *Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May.* >> This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning >> officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as >> the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian >> taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us >> know. >> >> There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a >> suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: >> >> >> - Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on >> the steering committee? >> - That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote >> to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of >> participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, >> improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your >> strengths lie? >> - Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at >> http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at >> http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in >> stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) >> - Anything else that you wish to communicate. >> >> >> Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group >> of candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please >> let us know. >> >> -- >> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ------------- >> Valeria Betancourt >> Directora / Manager >> Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and >> Information Policy Programme >> Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for >> Progressive Communications, APC >> http://www.apc.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Antonio Medina Gómez > Presidente > Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet > presidencia at acui.co > @amedinagomez > Skype amedinagomez > Celular 3118689626 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 30 13:41:19 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 13:41:19 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] (Brazil) Global Internet Policy Fellowship Program Message-ID: *Rio Institute for Technology & Society (ITSrio.org)* *Global Internet Policy Fellowship Program - July 2014* *Program overview* The Rio Institute of Technology and Society (ITS) invites researchers, graduate and undergraduate students, as well as professionals working with technology policy to apply to its Global Policy Fellowship Program and spend three weeks in Brazil at ITS. ITS is a leading research institute in Brazil in technology policy, affiliated with the Rio de Janeiro State University. More info at www.itsrio.org. Our Global Fellows will have the unique opportunity to work with the team who conceived and developed the landmark "Marco Civil" legislation, a bill protecting fundamental rights, including privacy, net neutrality and freedom of expression, approved as law in Brazil in April 2014. The ITS Fellowship Program will offer the opportunity for those interested in internet and technology policy to deepen their knowledge about the Brazilian technology context. We prepared an intensive 3-week program for our fellows, which include visits to the biggest technology companies operating in Brazil, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and visits to São Paulo and Brasília, including representatives from the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Culture and Congressmen who are advocating for policies related to internet and technology. Fellows will also be expected to present at least one public seminar, organized in partnership with ITS. Suggested topics can include: broadband and access policy, content regulation, copyright and creativity, consumer privacy, open government, government surveillance, data security, data innovation, freedom of expression, democracy and technology and human rights. Fellows will also have the chance to participate in the preparations of one international seminar on the topic of “democracy and technology” that ITS is organizing. *Who should apply?* We are looking for students, researchers, and professionals who are following the debates in the public policy field, and who want to spend part of their summer/winter in Brazil, learning about Internet policy. Students, researchers and professionals from all backgrounds are encouraged to apply. For the selection processes, please send us: · Your complete academic and professional resume, including your Linkedin profile and other online references you want us to consider; · A 1-page personal statement about your motivations to work in Brazil; · A brief work description of your experience with technology policy; · Proposal for a public presentation of your work; · Skills in Portuguese are not required All documents must be sent in one single e-mail message to itsrio at itsrio.org, with the subject “Global Fellows Application” *Our Fellowship Package includes:* - Intensive 3-week program for the fellows - Air tickets to São Paulo and Brasília - Accommodation in São Paulo and Brasília during our visits - Shared office space at our headquarters for three weeks - A visit to a "samba" music club will also be organized, but is not mandatory *Our Fellowship Package does not include:* - International Traveling to and from Brazil; - Accommodation for the three weeks in Rio de Janeiro, where our program takes place. Our team will provide tips and information about how to find accommodation in the city during that time. *Relevant Dates:* Applications deadline: June 24th, 2014 Announcement of fellows by e-mail: June 30th 2014 Fellowship Program will start July 21st, and will finish in August 8th, 2014 *About ITS:* The mission of the Rio Institute for Technology & Society is to ensure that Brazil responds creatively and appropriately to the opportunities provided by technology in the digital age, and that the potential benefits are broadly shared across society. Through its legal, social, economic and cultural dimensions of technology, ITS advocates for legal and regulatory measures which protect privacy, freedom of expression and access to knowledge. ITS also offers innovative training and education to individuals and institutions willing to understand the promises and challenges of new technologies. Lastly, ITS aims to strengthen the voice of Brazil, Latin America and the Global South in international debates on technology and its regulation. -- -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri May 30 14:06:45 2014 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 21:06:45 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination of Anja Kovacs for Steering Committee Message-ID: <32035ced-3af9-4d6a-9916-b793d44bd88f@email.android.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Dear all, I would like to nominate Anja Kovacs for either the Asia regional position or a non-regional position. Regards, Pranesh - -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: APG v1.1.1 iHEEAREKADEFAlOIyLUqHFByYW5lc2ggUHJha2FzaCA8dGhlLnNvbGlwc2lzdEBn bWFpbC5jb20+AAoJEOyaEgUdXF8Hmb0An2wD3Q/N3/ztSzYiD4OIcZFXl+emAJ47 2ZKCTZI4NIoCImB5cLyZKZuOqQ== =8j1b -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri May 30 14:24:55 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 21:24:55 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination of Anja Kovacs for Steering Committee In-Reply-To: <32035ced-3af9-4d6a-9916-b793d44bd88f@email.android.com> References: <32035ced-3af9-4d6a-9916-b793d44bd88f@email.android.com> Message-ID: I apologize for not being very familiar with bestbits processes, but I don't just get this idea of nominating same person for multiple region I am not sure I saw the provision of such in the call. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 30 May 2014 21:07, "Pranesh Prakash" wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Dear all, > I would like to nominate Anja Kovacs for either the Asia regional position > or a non-regional position. > > Regards, > Pranesh > - -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: APG v1.1.1 > > iHEEAREKADEFAlOIyLUqHFByYW5lc2ggUHJha2FzaCA8dGhlLnNvbGlwc2lzdEBn > bWFpbC5jb20+AAoJEOyaEgUdXF8Hmb0An2wD3Q/N3/ztSzYiD4OIcZFXl+emAJ47 > 2ZKCTZI4NIoCImB5cLyZKZuOqQ== > =8j1b > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri May 30 14:29:52 2014 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 21:29:52 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination of Anja Kovacs for Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: <32035ced-3af9-4d6a-9916-b793d44bd88f@email.android.com> Message-ID: <5388CE20.9040909@cis-india.org> Dear Seun, I would leave it up to Anja to accept the nomination from the position she feels more comfortable with. Do you think that would be improper or against the established process? Regards, Pranesh Seun Ojedeji [2014-05-30 21:24:55 +0300]: > I apologize for not being very familiar with bestbits processes, but I > don't just get this idea of nominating same person for multiple region > > I am not sure I saw the provision of such in the call. > > Cheers! > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 30 May 2014 21:07, "Pranesh Prakash" wrote: > > Dear all, > I would like to nominate Anja Kovacs for either the Asia regional position > or a non-regional position. > > Regards, > Pranesh >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -- 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: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri May 30 15:13:35 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 12:13:35 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination of Anja Kovacs for Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: <32035ced-3af9-4d6a-9916-b793d44bd88f@email.android.com> Message-ID: <5388D85F.6080506@Malcolm.id.au> On 30/05/2014 11:24 am, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > I apologize for not being very familiar with bestbits processes, but I don't just get this idea of nominating same person for multiple region > > I am not sure I saw the provision of such in the call. Yes it was in the call - to ensure regional diversity there is are 5 places for each region, plus 3 places that are not tied to a specific region, and candidates can run for both (though of course they can only be elected once). Ian will be working on the election machinery over the weekend, so we will be able to show you how this works in practice next week. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 309 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 30 19:38:40 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 19:38:40 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] nomination - BB Steering Committee Message-ID: I would like to nominate Claudio Ruiz - founder of Derechos Digitales from Chile - for the Best Bits steering committee, for either the Latin America seat or one of the "non-regional" seats. His organization at - https://www.derechosdigitales.org/ More on Claudio here: https://www.derechosdigitales.org/author/claudio/ Best, C -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Fri May 30 19:40:25 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 19:40:25 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] nomination - BB Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Excellent nomination! -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Carolina Rossini > Reply-To: Carolina Rossini > Date: Friday, May 30, 2014 at 7:38 PM To: "> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" > Subject: [bestbits] nomination - BB Steering Committee I would like to nominate Claudio Ruiz - founder of Derechos Digitales from Chile - for the Best Bits steering committee, for either the Latin America seat or one of the "non-regional" seats. His organization at - https://www.derechosdigitales.org/ More on Claudio here: https://www.derechosdigitales.org/author/claudio/ Best, C -- Carolina Rossini Vice President, International Policy Public Knowledge http://www.publicknowledge.org/ + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri May 30 21:05:23 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 04:05:23 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination of Anja Kovacs for Steering Committee In-Reply-To: <5388CE20.9040909@cis-india.org> References: <32035ced-3af9-4d6a-9916-b793d44bd88f@email.android.com> <5388CE20.9040909@cis-india.org> Message-ID: Hello Pranesh, sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 30 May 2014 21:29, "Pranesh Prakash" wrote: > > Dear Seun, > I would leave it up to Anja to accept the nomination from the position > she feels more comfortable with. Do you think that would be improper or > against the established process? > I have found that it's not, although from my understanding it seem the final elected position will then be determined by highest voted position per candidate. Looking forward to the election process as I think it's gonna be interesting (imagining a tie on both regional and non-regional for a candidate :)) Thanks and thanks too @Jeremy. Cheers! > Regards, > Pranesh > > Seun Ojedeji [2014-05-30 21:24:55 +0300]: > > I apologize for not being very familiar with bestbits processes, but I > > don't just get this idea of nominating same person for multiple region > > > > I am not sure I saw the provision of such in the call. > > > > Cheers! > > > > sent from Google nexus 4 > > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 30 May 2014 21:07, "Pranesh Prakash" wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > I would like to nominate Anja Kovacs for either the Asia regional position > > or a non-regional position. > > > > Regards, > > Pranesh > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > > > > -- > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sat May 31 06:31:35 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 16:01:35 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Nomination of Anja Kovacs for Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: <32035ced-3af9-4d6a-9916-b793d44bd88f@email.android.com> <5388CE20.9040909@cis-india.org> Message-ID: Dear Pranesh and all, Thank you for nominating me for the Best Bits Steering Committee. It will be my pleasure to accept, for either position mentioned. Below some more information to back up my candidature. With best regards, Anja *Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on the steering committee?* It is clear that we have come to a crucial juncture in Internet governance. The NETmundial highlighted the important challenges civil society faces in getting its voice heard effectively, but also the great value that lies in organising as global civil society. Now more than ever, to be able to affect a change, we need to build stronger fronts. In line with the principles that have always guided its work, I believe Best Bits is and should be one important platform to build such fronts. In particular, it should do so across South-North divides. I will bring to the steering committee a strong commitment to make sure that voices and interests from the developing world, and especially from marginalised communities, are not simply "heard" or "represented", but that they fundamentally shape the work of Best Bits and its way forward. This commitment is based in my belief in human rights and social justice, in distributed Internet governance, and in the continued potential value of multistakeholderism for the deepening of democracy while recognising that realising this potential will require considerable reform. I value collaboration and think that it is by strengthening its messaging and advocacy around points of agreement that civil society can really have an impact in global Internet governance. *That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your strengths lie?* I can commit the time required, and have over the previous year contributed in a range of ways, including in the organisation of meetings, contributing to joint statements and interventions, etc. However, I believe it is important that Best Bits starts to think more strategically and would like to work specifically towards a greater focus on that, as well as to developing the strong processes required to facilitate the evolution of Best Bits as a platform for diverse groups and opinions in that context (see also below). *Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures athttp://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/ . (These are not written in stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.)* As one of the members of the interim steering committee, I have contributed to this statement of objectives and the draft procedures. That there is a need to further develop these was recognised in Bali, where a number of suggestions to do so were also made. However, there did not seem to be a consensus on whether or not the interim steering committee had a mandate to take his further. If confirmed for the steering committee in this election, this is one area where I would like to focus my energies, as also explained above. This includes the development of procedures for the internal functioning of the steering committee. *Bio* As many of you know, I direct the Internet Democracy Project in Delhi. India, which seeks to unearth the promises and challenges that the Internet poses for democracy and social justice in India and beyond, through research, advocacy and debate. My work at the Internet Democracy Project focuses especially on questions regarding freedom of expression in a broad sense (meaning we look at hate speech as a free speech issue, but also at surveillance, access, etc) and on the architecture of Internet governance (the future evolution of which we believe will have an important impact on the empowering potential of the Internet). I have also worked as an international consultant on Internet issues, including for the United Nations Development Programme Asia Pacific and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, and have been a Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society and a Senior Research Associate with IT for Change, both in Bangalore, India. Prior to focusing my work on the information society, I researched and consulted on a wide range of development-related issues. I have lectured at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, and Ambedkar University, Delhi, India, and have conducted extensive fieldwork throughout South Asia. I obtained my PhD in Development Studies from the University of East Anglia in the UK and have lived in India since 2001. On 31 May 2014 06:35, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Pranesh, > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 30 May 2014 21:29, "Pranesh Prakash" wrote: > > > > Dear Seun, > > I would leave it up to Anja to accept the nomination from the position > > she feels more comfortable with. Do you think that would be improper or > > against the established process? > > > I have found that it's not, although from my understanding it seem the > final elected position will then be determined by highest voted position > per candidate. Looking forward to the election process as I think it's > gonna be interesting (imagining a tie on both regional and non-regional for > a candidate :)) > > Thanks and thanks too @Jeremy. > > Cheers! > > > Regards, > > Pranesh > > > > Seun Ojedeji [2014-05-30 21:24:55 +0300]: > > > I apologize for not being very familiar with bestbits processes, but I > > > don't just get this idea of nominating same person for multiple region > > > > > > I am not sure I saw the provision of such in the call. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > sent from Google nexus 4 > > > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > > On 30 May 2014 21:07, "Pranesh Prakash" wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > I would like to nominate Anja Kovacs for either the Asia regional > position > > > or a non-regional position. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Pranesh > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu May 1 01:50:14 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 07:50:14 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> Message-ID: <5361E096.5070901@acm.org> Hi, Apologies I meant para 35 of the Tunis Agenda, not 32. As for other documents, there are multiple versions of the text in progress. - recommendations agreed and to be revisted - opinions and statements - recommendations not yet accepted at 3rd meeting - recommendations not yet reviewed https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B55cFPaDsEfFVU9UR3JsX0VHdWs&usp=sharing there is a google drive doc of the current state. but I can't find the url for that this morning. avri On 01-May-14 06:57, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Avri, > > Could you give a link to the document you refer to. Or send a copy of the doc to the list. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > On May 1, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Well day one came and went. >> >> We reviewed some of the recommendation that had not yet been reviewed, >> and once again got hung up on the fundamental differences: >> >> - Enhanced cooperation is only about governments >> - Enhanced cooperation is about all stakeholders. >> >> - Para 32 says all there is to say about Respective Roles and >> Responsibilities >> - Para 32 needs to be revisited to match reality. >> >> - WGEC needs to deliver a consensus report >> - WGEC can come out with a report that reports the varying models >> >> - We trust the chair and he can write a chapeau discussing the >> differences of viewpoint. >> - we like the chair, but he is just human, we need to write up our own >> viewpoints. >> >> - we should go back to our hotels and write up a brief (several line) >> opinion of Enhanced Cooperation and Multistakeholderism >> - we don't need to do this but should continue working on trying to find >> the item(s) we can reach consensus on. >> >> (I expect most groups have been doing the homework just in case there is >> a quiz) >> >> >> The Sessions are broadcast live. I do not know if there are archived >> recording, but there probably are - I will check. The CSTD secretariat >> has come a long way in the short year this WG has been working. From a >> first meeting where streaming was not possible, to a meeting 11 months >> later, with streaming and remote participation for absent WG members - >> not that any did participate as far as I know. >> >> Process wise, Observers are allowed to comment but only in a 15 minute >> slot just before breaks. >> >> While we had brief reports on NETmundial, the IGF, ITU activities etc, >> these were not discussed as there were those who argued that these were >> not immediately relevant to the work of the WGEC which has its own >> mandate. The chair concurred. >> >> Tomorrow is another day. >> >> avri >> >> (a cs nominated member of the wgec) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > From anriette at apc.org Thu May 1 11:15:33 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 17:15:33 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <5362547C.9040306@cdt.org> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <5360F56C.8020002@cafonso.ca> <53622BC0.1060307@digitaldissidents.org> <5362433D.1020709@cafonso.ca> <5362547C.9040306@cdt.org> Message-ID: <53626515.6090003@apc.org> Agree with all this Matthew. We did not do too badly. And I think we also learnt that there are some issues which we need to learn about more, and around which we need to develop more comprehensive positions, e.g. intellectual property, and other pre-conditions which are vital to free expression and association such as the right to encryption and to anonymous speech and not making intermediaries liable for user behaviours. Even if these were not spelled out in the NetM document, we need to develop strategies to secure these. Anriette On 01/05/2014 16:04, Matthew Shears wrote: > Just to move beyond the "who did what and why" during the somewhat > chaotic last moments of NETmundial and focus on what we learned, here > are a couple of thoughts: > > * The pre-day worked very well and we should take those structured > approaches more often - there was a real sense of working together > and accomplishment > * We played a central and constructive role because we contributed > fully to the entire process, from the consultations contributing > as either platforms or as individual organizations, through the > event itself - that consistent engagement is critical in my mind > to our success and is a learning for other fora that we engage in > * If there was a moment when our engagement broke down a little it > was when the text went into the smaller drafting groups - we > should have been more available and organized around those > committees when they needed wording or assistance > * We identified speakers who spoke to issues of concern for which we > largely had a common view - an achievement and something we should > consider in the future > * We had text for many of the key issues - which was critical - but > as others have noted, the specificity that was needed by the > committees was sometimes lacking - a lesson for next time > * The multi-stakeholder approach was largely practiced throughout, > with the exception of the last moments where the primacy of > governments became apparent. Whether this was a reality of this > particular process or not, it reminds us of the importance of > reaching out to all stakeholders to understand where their > thinking is on critical issues. We should continue to push our > positions of course but we also need to know where other stand on > the same. We may never see eye to eye with other stakeholders on > some/many issues but it is good to understand where they are so we > are not as surprised as we were by the NETmundial end game in the > future. > * We may not get all that we want, but we can get a lot - as we did > in Sao Paulo. And this is in part testament to the points above > and how well civil society engaged and cooperated. > > My 2 centavos > > Matthew > > On 5/1/2014 9:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> And... >> >> On May 1, 2014, at 9:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Hi Niels, >>> >>> On 05/01/2014 08:10 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >>>> Dear Carlos, >>>> >>>> On 04/30/2014 03:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not >>>>> included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand >>>>> English, this is the paragraph on it: >>>>> >>>>> "UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a >>>>> globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and >>>>> accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique >>>>> identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely >>>>> end-to-end regardless of the lawful content." >>>>> >>>> This definition allows for charging differentially by user, content, >>>> site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of >>>> communication. >>> It is not a definition -- nobody had said that so far. The recommendation for a principle provides the basis without which your dreams (which are also ours, or at least mine) would not come true. Do you think we would be able to delve into such details in an attempt to build a pluralist consensus document? And this is why we mentioned in the Roadmap the issue is complex and merits further dialogue and recommendations. >>> >> We kept asking for specific text. Something the we could work with in drafting. Asked on this list and others, asked at the CS meeting on 22nd. I think I even suggested: >> >> "Neutrality: The Internet should remain a neutral and open platform, free from discrimination, so as to encourage free expression, the free flow of information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship." >> >> Not great, but something to argue for. (and it might have been a lever to keep the other creator text out of the document?) >> >> We looked through the transcripts and all I remember seeing is general statements (we want to see NN mentioned, blah... and those were balanced by others who said there was no place for net neutrality in the documents). Sorry if I missed anything, but we needed text to work with, and needed support. Where we got help, it worked: thanks particularly to Robin, Stephanie, Avri. >> >> Anyway. A very enjoyable and rewarding process. There are a lot of positives in the documents. >> >> I'm very grateful to CS for asking me to join the EMC. Thank you, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >>> In the Marco Civil, we also recognize the issue is not exhausted, this is why we agreed to insert the possibility of further regulation under the guidance of CGI.br and Anatel. This in itself was a major victory, as the transnational telcos (mostly European) who control the network market in Brazil did not want even the mention of CGI.br anywhere in the document. >>> >>> Sometimes I think some progressive civil society groups have slipped towards Aristotelian logic -- either we get all or nothing -- forgetting all about political tactics. Unfortunate. >>> >>> BTW, I would really like to see the list of orgs who signed (or agreed to) the statement. I find it hard to believe that 50-60 orgs were so naïve in grasping the relevance of the moment and the nature of the final document after participating in the event (I assume they all participated?). >>> >>> And I thank again Stephanie Perrin for understanding that relevance and nature. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>>> So I am not sure it would fall under my definition of network neutrality. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Niels >>>> >>>> Niels ten Oever >>>> Acting Head of Digital >>>> >>>> Article 19 >>>> www.article19.org >>>> >>>> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Sat May 31 08:34:04 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 08:34:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] LAST REMINDER! Applications close May 31 - Best Bits steering committee election In-Reply-To: References: <9E8652B1A8F84E6696C85E990C76E390@Toshiba> <702A5F22AABD44B28712B0B97F1D0678@Toshiba> Message-ID: Dear Valeria, all, Thank you for nominating me for the Best Bits steering committee. It is my pleasure to accept the nomination, and please see below information relating to my candidacy. Bio: Deborah has served on the Best Bits interim steering committee and has worked as a Senior Policy Analyst for Access, where she has focused on the intersection of internet governance policy and human rights. Specifically, she has led Access’ engagement in the WSIS review process, the multiple ITU processes, the IGF, NetMundial, and the Human Rights Council. Starting in June 2014, Deborah will join the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) as a Senior Project Coordinator focusing on national internet rights advocacy in Asian, internet governance, and supporting APC's work in MENA and Africa. Previously, she has worked with the United Nations Foundation, the National Democratic Institute, and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems She holds degrees from Georgetown University and Barnard College, Columbia University. Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on the steering committee? I view Best Bits as a broad-based network to facilitate knowledge-sharing and joint action on internet governance and human rights. It is important to me that Best Bits brings in diverse views, new voices, and is inclusive so as to dissolve North-South divides. While I believe one of Best Bits strengths is that it brings together a diversity of views, backgrounds, experience, I would like to the network working towards improved internet governance processes that are more transparent inclusive, diverse, accountable democratic, and are guided by human rights and the public interest If chosen to serve on the steering committee, I would aim to further the vision described above, while also listening to all views and trying to bridge divides. That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your strengths lie? I am committed to dedicating the necessary time to serve on the Best Bits steering committee. I feel that my strengths lie in coordinating and drafting joint statements, interventions, and helping to organize meetings for the broader community. All the best, Deborah On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Dear all, > > We would like to nominate Deborah Brown. > > Best, > > Valeria > > El 29/05/2014, a las 22:27, Ian Peter escribió: > > > Hi Folks, > > This is a last reminder that nominations close on May 31 – time now to > send in your nomination if you have not already done so > > To date, the candidates are > > Jeremy Malcolm > Carolina Rossini > Andrew Puddephatt > Nnenna Nwakanma > Marianne Franklin > Imran Shah > > > So – we still need more candidates. > > Best Bits has done a terrific job for civil society, particularly with its > pre IGF and pre NetMundial conferences, and its sign on statements. This is > largely due to the great efforts of last years steering committee. I would > urge people to put their names forward. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 12:37 AM > *To:* mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [bestbits] Notice seeking candidates for Best Bits steering > committee election > > Dear all, > > As there was general support for the proposed election process that was > proposed on 10 April, subject to one suggested change (which has been > made), below is the process that is proposed for the election of the next > Best Bits steering committee. > > - Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days > - Anyone can claim voting rights if they: > - have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the > election being called; and > - agree to the existing statement of objectives (see > http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). > - Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each > separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): > - Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, > Europe, North America/Other > - Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may > result in fewer positions filled > - Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical > position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the > other. > - Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system > - It is aimed to achieve a panel of candidates with at least 40% of > each gender - if not, the election will be postponed, unless there is a > broad consensus amongst all eligible voters to run the election > notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. > - Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, > with a 1 year gap before reappointment. > - Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. > > *Nominations of candidates for election are open from now until 31 May.* > This can be done by sending an email to the list and/or to the returning > officer. Ian Peter has volunteered to act as > the returning officer for the election. If there are any objections to Ian > taking this role, or if anyone else would like to assist Ian, please let us > know. > > There is no required format for the candidates' statement, however as a > suggestion, it may be useful to indicate: > > > - Your vision for Best Bits. What do you think you can contribute on > the steering committee? > - That you can commit time of up to several hours per week to devote > to Best Bits. This may include facilitating the broader community of > participants to organise meetings, draft joint statements or interventions, > improve website resources, mediate disputes, etc. Where do you think your > strengths lie? > - Familiarity with the existing statement of objectives at > http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/ and the draft procedures at > http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/. (These are not written in > stone, but they are a useful guideline to our current practices.) > - Anything else that you wish to communicate. > > > Thanks for your support as we look forward to receiving a diverse group of > candidates for our first election. If you have any questions, please let > us know. > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Thu May 1 11:20:28 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 11:20:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <5362547C.9040306@cdt.org> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <5360F56C.8020002@cafonso.ca> <53622BC0.1060307@digitaldissidents.org> <5362433D.1020709@cafonso.ca> <5362547C.9040306@cdt.org> Message-ID: <5362663C.6020402@softwarefreedom.org> As a person who stood up and applauded for some parts and not the others because my perception and understanding of the process was very different, I find Jeanette's explanation extremely helpful. I was tweeting about how impressed I was with her, Adam and Anriette but was extremely disappointed with what I thought was developing. This also educates me and makes me wonder if we were in the same meeting. I can imagine Adam and Anriette's predicament with no specific language to work with. I witnessed it in the drafting room sometimes and was left frustrated myself, having no way of contributing and gawking at business reps and their team which had different waves of alternative language to propose. I was only an observer and did not have the responsibility as Adam and Anriette had. This speaks to our lack of coordination on crucial issues, for example Net Neutrality and Intellectual Property Rights language. Mathew is correct in highlighting the positive parts of our approach but I think having designated teams with people who have expertise in specific areas, can come up with actual words to reflect our concerns while thinking on their feet is crucial. If we can divide effort and coordinate our statements better, it will be a huge learning for the next such opportunity. On 05/01/2014 10:04 AM, Matthew Shears wrote: > Just to move beyond the "who did what and why" during the somewhat > chaotic last moments of NETmundial and focus on what we learned, here > are a couple of thoughts: > > * The pre-day worked very well and we should take those structured > approaches more often - there was a real sense of working together > and accomplishment > * We played a central and constructive role because we contributed > fully to the entire process, from the consultations contributing > as either platforms or as individual organizations, through the > event itself - that consistent engagement is critical in my mind > to our success and is a learning for other fora that we engage in > * If there was a moment when our engagement broke down a little it > was when the text went into the smaller drafting groups - we > should have been more available and organized around those > committees when they needed wording or assistance > * We identified speakers who spoke to issues of concern for which we > largely had a common view - an achievement and something we should > consider in the future > * We had text for many of the key issues - which was critical - but > as others have noted, the specificity that was needed by the > committees was sometimes lacking - a lesson for next time > * The multi-stakeholder approach was largely practiced throughout, > with the exception of the last moments where the primacy of > governments became apparent. Whether this was a reality of this > particular process or not, it reminds us of the importance of > reaching out to all stakeholders to understand where their > thinking is on critical issues. We should continue to push our > positions of course but we also need to know where other stand on > the same. We may never see eye to eye with other stakeholders on > some/many issues but it is good to understand where they are so we > are not as surprised as we were by the NETmundial end game in the > future. > * We may not get all that we want, but we can get a lot - as we did > in Sao Paulo. And this is in part testament to the points above > and how well civil society engaged and cooperated. > > My 2 centavos > > Matthew > > On 5/1/2014 9:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> And... >> >> On May 1, 2014, at 9:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Hi Niels, >>> >>> On 05/01/2014 08:10 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >>>> Dear Carlos, >>>> >>>> On 04/30/2014 03:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not >>>>> included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand >>>>> English, this is the paragraph on it: >>>>> >>>>> "UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a >>>>> globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and >>>>> accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique >>>>> identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely >>>>> end-to-end regardless of the lawful content." >>>>> >>>> This definition allows for charging differentially by user, content, >>>> site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of >>>> communication. >>> It is not a definition -- nobody had said that so far. The recommendation for a principle provides the basis without which your dreams (which are also ours, or at least mine) would not come true. Do you think we would be able to delve into such details in an attempt to build a pluralist consensus document? And this is why we mentioned in the Roadmap the issue is complex and merits further dialogue and recommendations. >>> >> We kept asking for specific text. Something the we could work with in drafting. Asked on this list and others, asked at the CS meeting on 22nd. I think I even suggested: >> >> "Neutrality: The Internet should remain a neutral and open platform, free from discrimination, so as to encourage free expression, the free flow of information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship." >> >> Not great, but something to argue for. (and it might have been a lever to keep the other creator text out of the document?) >> >> We looked through the transcripts and all I remember seeing is general statements (we want to see NN mentioned, blah... and those were balanced by others who said there was no place for net neutrality in the documents). Sorry if I missed anything, but we needed text to work with, and needed support. Where we got help, it worked: thanks particularly to Robin, Stephanie, Avri. >> >> Anyway. A very enjoyable and rewarding process. There are a lot of positives in the documents. >> >> I'm very grateful to CS for asking me to join the EMC. Thank you, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >>> In the Marco Civil, we also recognize the issue is not exhausted, this is why we agreed to insert the possibility of further regulation under the guidance of CGI.br and Anatel. This in itself was a major victory, as the transnational telcos (mostly European) who control the network market in Brazil did not want even the mention of CGI.br anywhere in the document. >>> >>> Sometimes I think some progressive civil society groups have slipped towards Aristotelian logic -- either we get all or nothing -- forgetting all about political tactics. Unfortunate. >>> >>> BTW, I would really like to see the list of orgs who signed (or agreed to) the statement. I find it hard to believe that 50-60 orgs were so naïve in grasping the relevance of the moment and the nature of the final document after participating in the event (I assume they all participated?). >>> >>> And I thank again Stephanie Perrin for understanding that relevance and nature. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>>> So I am not sure it would fall under my definition of network neutrality. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Niels >>>> >>>> Niels ten Oever >>>> Acting Head of Digital >>>> >>>> Article 19 >>>> www.article19.org >>>> >>>> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Matthew Shears > Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > mshears at cdt.org > + 44 771 247 2987 -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 1 12:07:54 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 12:07:54 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. Stephanie Perrin On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. > > So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. > > Thanks > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: > I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... > 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. > 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? > 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over > 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. > 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? > 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective > 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. > 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. > 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. > > Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. > > If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. > > Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. > > In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? > > A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. > > JC > > Post-scriptum: > John, > Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? > > JC > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : > >> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >> >> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >> >> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >> that we've just very successfully created. >> >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu May 1 13:27:51 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 19:27:51 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks for your answer and interest, As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. JC Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > +1 A welcome reminder of reality. > Stephanie Perrin > On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >> >> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >> >> Thanks >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> >> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >> >> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >> >> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >> >> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >> >> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >> >> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >> >> JC >> >> Post-scriptum: >> John, >> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >> >> JC >> >> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >> >>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>> >>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>> >>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>> >>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>> that we've just very successfully created. >>> >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 1 13:59:23 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 13:59:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. Kind regards, Stephanie On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Thanks for your answer and interest, > > As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? > > 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? > > I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. > > The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. > > JC > > > > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > >> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >> Stephanie Perrin >> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >>> >>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >>> >>> Thanks >>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>> >>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >>> >>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >>> >>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>> >>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >>> >>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >>> >>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>> >>> JC >>> >>> Post-scriptum: >>> John, >>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >>> >>> JC >>> >>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>> >>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>>> >>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>>> >>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>> >>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>> >>>> /John >>>> >>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu May 1 14:10:29 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 20:10:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <812290EF-7F66-47EA-9788-A3D8D107B72C@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks Stephanie, I suggested to launch a dialogue, presumably knowing that there are a few stakeholders out here. I suggested to have a CS conversation indeed so to see if any CS common ground exists - I am not convinced this cannot be achieved, as I do not see a true CS conversation going on, with so many interferences polluting the CS floor. Having a larger ground from the CS would increase its ability to influence other parties, whether the private sector or the governments. In my opinion this conversation is mostly needed among the CS (out of the I*, the 5 eyes, and governments). Shining a light of the different visions of a full eco-system seems to be a good and potentially fruitful perspective. So are you saying that it cannot be a CS dialogue, without embedding all other parties - what you call stakeholders. Am I understanding you correctly? No CS dialogue because it contradicts the multistakeholder model? Waiting for Seun reaction and comments as you know have very different understanding of what Seun wrote. JC Le 1 mai 2014 à 19:59, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. > By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. > Kind regards, > Stephanie > On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> Thanks for your answer and interest, >> >> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? >> >> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? >> >> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. >> >> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : >> >>> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >>>> >>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>> >>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >>>> >>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >>>> >>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>>> >>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >>>> >>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >>>> >>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> Post-scriptum: >>>> John, >>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>>> >>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>>>> >>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>>> >>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>>> >>>>> /John >>>>> >>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 1 14:16:05 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 19:16:05 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Thanks for your answer and interest, > > As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the > arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over > the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger > your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were > the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you > not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians > chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with > pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first > argument? > Nope, my point is not about pleasing the host, my point was about making sure that CS remain within the platform and not pull out. The platform is that which ensure that all the relevant stakeholders are on the table for dialogue. We should not in the name of "free word" miss the fact that the various implementing stakeholders needs to be in scope and within reach (or as close as possible to ear the words). Nevertheless i also don't think we should under estimate the support of those different stakeholder be it funding, hosting et all. (While funding was not my major component in regards to support, i think i will like to say its also a factor) Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is > this the reality Stephanie refers to? > While i am not Stephanie, but i presume her view could be in relation to my comment above. > > 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the > success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be > seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume > we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and > some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be > envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have > an open debate over different eco-systems? > > Like i qualified my statement, i call it "collaborative independence" that is a desired status i hope CS have. I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. > > The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put > in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for > correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are > referring to. > Thank you and i hope the few word helps, while i am also open to get further clarification from you. Cheers! > > JC > > > > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > > +1 A welcome reminder of reality. > Stephanie Perrin > On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is > great. However I think we should remember that civil society without > support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is > just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been > such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. > > So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" > the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should > not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative > independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. > > Thanks > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > >> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What >> can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each >> participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. >> Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare >> speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but >> more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even >> the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and >> common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am >> among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to >> CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome >> document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw >> process - from the very beginning. >> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any >> serious objective >> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a >> couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means >> that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when >> from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and >> un-solved. >> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of >> that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with >> some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the >> old colonial times. >> >> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), >> a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS >> would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues >> where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a >> common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power >> in the game. It is not the case today. >> >> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge >> gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC >> will keep growing. >> >> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS >> come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the >> I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of >> what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to >> the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has >> been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from >> diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and >> multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) >> and a World Internet Organization are >> the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many >> issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. >> I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, >> and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their >> un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. >> Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the >> USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision >> of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 >> is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the >> Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and >> addressing. >> >> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major >> concern)? >> >> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to >> many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be >> welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >> >> JC >> >> Post-scriptum: >> John, >> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for >> the Internet governance? >> >> JC >> >> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >> >> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> >> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would >> help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive >> and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net >> Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a >> four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in >> between. >> >> >> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >> >> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >> that we've just very successfully created. >> >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 1 14:26:30 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 19:26:30 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <812290EF-7F66-47EA-9788-A3D8D107B72C@theglobaljournal.net> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> <812290EF-7F66-47EA-9788-A3D8D107B72C@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Hello Jean, On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Thanks Stephanie, > > I suggested to launch a dialogue, presumably knowing that there are a few > stakeholders out here. I suggested to have a CS conversation indeed so to > see if any CS common ground exists - I am not convinced this cannot be > achieved, as I do not see a true CS conversation going on, with so many > interferences polluting the CS floor. Having a larger ground from the CS > would increase its ability to influence other parties, whether the private > sector or the governments. In my opinion this conversation is mostly needed > among the CS (out of the I*, the 5 eyes, and governments). Shining a light > of the different visions of a full eco-system seems to be a good and > potentially fruitful perspective. So are you saying that it cannot be a CS > dialogue, without embedding all other parties - what you call stakeholders. > > I thought you said you wanted an open dialogue? unless you want to introduce a membership process for CS then i did say the CS by nature is open and already inter-related with the I*, the 5 eyes, and governments so we should take advantage of that profile to make a difference. If CSMundial will help achieve a further collaboration between the existing stakeholder and not further make CS distant itself then i rest my case. All i call for is to be strategic in all these. Am I understanding you correctly? No CS dialogue because it contradicts the > multistakeholder model? Waiting for Seun reaction and comments as you know > have very different understanding of what Seun wrote. > I thought i had replied? Unless it wasn't enough; please let me know what part needs further clarification Kind Regards! > > JC > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 19:59, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > > The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: *However > I think we should remember that civil society without support from others > (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that > could be far from reality.* > By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, > you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have > to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective > endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. > They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring > to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. > Kind regards, > Stephanie > On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > > Thanks for your answer and interest, > > As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the > arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over > the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger > your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were > the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you > not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians > chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with > pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first > argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and > hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? > > 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the > success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be > seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume > we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and > some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be > envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have > an open debate over different eco-systems? > > I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. > > The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put > in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for > correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are > referring to. > > JC > > > > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > > +1 A welcome reminder of reality. > Stephanie Perrin > On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is > great. However I think we should remember that civil society without > support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is > just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been > such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. > > So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" > the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should > not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative > independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. > > Thanks > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > >> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What >> can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each >> participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. >> Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare >> speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but >> more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even >> the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and >> common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am >> among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to >> CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome >> document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw >> process - from the very beginning. >> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any >> serious objective >> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a >> couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means >> that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when >> from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and >> un-solved. >> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of >> that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with >> some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the >> old colonial times. >> >> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), >> a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS >> would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues >> where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a >> common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power >> in the game. It is not the case today. >> >> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge >> gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC >> will keep growing. >> >> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS >> come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the >> I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of >> what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to >> the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has >> been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from >> diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and >> multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) >> and a World Internet Organization are >> the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many >> issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. >> I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, >> and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their >> un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. >> Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the >> USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision >> of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 >> is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the >> Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and >> addressing. >> >> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major >> concern)? >> >> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to >> many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be >> welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >> >> JC >> >> Post-scriptum: >> John, >> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for >> the Internet governance? >> >> JC >> >> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >> >> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> >> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would >> help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive >> and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net >> Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a >> four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in >> between. >> >> >> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >> >> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >> that we've just very successfully created. >> >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 1 14:32:25 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 19:32:25 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. For instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. When you get support of government so well (as exhibited at NetMundial) you can at least leave the event with assurance that your voice was heard (and not when you make the noise in isolation) Thanks Cheers! On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: *However > I think we should remember that civil society without support from others > (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that > could be far from reality.* > By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, > you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have > to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective > endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. > They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring > to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. > Kind regards, > Stephanie > > On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > > Thanks for your answer and interest, > > As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the > arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over > the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger > your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were > the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you > not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians > chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with > pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first > argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and > hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? > > 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the > success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be > seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume > we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and > some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be > envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have > an open debate over different eco-systems? > > I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. > > The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put > in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for > correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are > referring to. > > JC > > > > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : > > +1 A welcome reminder of reality. > Stephanie Perrin > On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is > great. However I think we should remember that civil society without > support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is > just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been > such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. > > So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" > the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should > not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative > independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. > > Thanks > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > >> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What >> can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each >> participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. >> Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare >> speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but >> more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even >> the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and >> common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am >> among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to >> CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome >> document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw >> process - from the very beginning. >> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any >> serious objective >> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a >> couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means >> that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when >> from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and >> un-solved. >> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of >> that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with >> some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the >> old colonial times. >> >> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), >> a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS >> would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues >> where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a >> common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power >> in the game. It is not the case today. >> >> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge >> gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC >> will keep growing. >> >> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS >> come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the >> I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of >> what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to >> the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has >> been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from >> diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and >> multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) >> and a World Internet Organization are >> the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many >> issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. >> I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, >> and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their >> un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. >> Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the >> USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision >> of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 >> is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the >> Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and >> addressing. >> >> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major >> concern)? >> >> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to >> many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be >> welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >> >> JC >> >> Post-scriptum: >> John, >> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for >> the Internet governance? >> >> JC >> >> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >> >> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> >> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would >> help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive >> and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net >> Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a >> four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in >> between. >> >> >> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >> >> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >> that we've just very successfully created. >> >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 1 14:51:18 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 14:51:18 -0400 Subject: Fwd: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement References: Message-ID: <73D2C42E-D6FF-46FA-A6BF-1544C99ED57A@mail.utoronto.ca> Dear all, I have hesitated to wade into this discussion, but I think as I was one of your elected/chosen representatives on the HLMC, I have a responsibility to clarify a few things, and express my views. 1. Firstly, thanks to Jeannette for the very good summary below. It is clear to me that even though there were many civil society representatives in the meeting between the HLMC and the HMC, many did not realize how close we were to losing the entire game at the 11th hour. Document, strong wording, and (most importantly) the ability to declare the process of Netmundial a success, a conference which moved so many yardsticks in a positive direction, nearly went out the window. This would have been, in my view, pretty close to a catastrophe, on a number of levels, but particularly for the Brazilian government, who had shown true leadership in proposing this conference and in linking up the world. This fact, that we nearly lost everything, was clear to many (most?) governments, who came up to me after I intervened to isolate the representative of the Indian government at that meeting. That it was not clear to civil society, in my view, is a matter of deep concern. I am not looking for thanks, I am just wondering about our collective political maturity. 2. Having said that, I would like to thank Carlos for his support for my interventions. Let me be clear, I was perfectly happy with the very dignified expression of dissent and disappointment that Niels delivered, but it was not my place to deliver it. As a member of the HLMC, which was the forum to contain governments, it was important that I delivered a balanced message, and left on a note that declared victory for our Brazilian hosts. 3. Thirdly, while we had an excellent civil society meeting on the day before the conference, truly well organized and stimulating, we did not leave there clear on either the process or the strategy. I would respectfully suggest that this was a serious omission. What were our goals? was it to craft a strong document? was it to find allies in the room, to help us advance our roles and responsibilities beyond the holding pen we were placed in at Tunis? was it to endorse a new kind of multi-stakeholder model? It is vitally important, when preparing for a complex meeting like this one, that we establish some kind of rough consensus on what we are trying to achieve, and how we plan to achieve that. Time was not on our side, but we still needed goals, strategy and tactics. 4. Fourthly, we need to have an accurate picture of risk, and how it is escalating in the current global environment. I was very struck by something that Anja Kovacs said at the Toronto conference Cyber-dialogues, immediately after the ICANN Singapore meeting. She said, I am not going to encourage my stakeholders, poor and disenfranchised folks, to get on the Internet and use ICT, if all it is going to do is set them up to be surveilled and controlled. Indeed. I believe this is a serious threat. How does one control that threat? Not by alienating governments. They need to buy into the multi-stakeholder process, and this was a golden opportunity to persuade them that it does not hurt. When I hear the very thoughtful Indian government representative repeating on the podium and in the room, "we have learned a lot from this meeting", we need to wonder (and find out) just exactly what he learned. If what he is saying, is that it will be a cold day in hell when we come back to a meeting such as this, then our stakeholders in India have lost a round. 5. Please pardon me for lecturing folks who have been in this game a long time, but if you think governments (and powerful corporations who control them) are anxious to expose themselves to criticism from strident civil society representatives, you are mistaken. The control that western governments exert, those who believe in vigorous free speech and discourse with their critics as a general rule, is waning. For the sake of those billions of existing and potential netizens living in the new and burgeoning economies of the BRICS, and the many other countries who look to the Internet for growth, representatives of civil society have a serious responsibility to consider how their actions and words are going to be interpreted, and brought home to capitals. Fine for those of us living in Europe and North America to say things that annoy our government and business partners, but we must be mindful that we could be delivering the powerless into the hands of those who would like to control them and take every shred of power from them. This does not mean civil society must be toothless or weak, it means we must be careful, deliberative, consultative, and strong. We have right on our side, we don’t need to act with precipitate haste, or anger. We need to consider the long view, and the long game. We need to look statesmanlike. 6. In this sense, my priority was not the text. It was and is the process. Sometimes, it is vital to determine prior to a meeting such as this one, exactly what each stakeholder (I mean the various governments, our hosts, the business caucuses, entities such as ICANN) need to get out of the meeting. This will then determine how much you push for in the text, and how you play it. Business knows this. I think we overplayed our hand, drew the governments out unnecessarily, and this allowed the IP constituency to get more than they deserved. This was avoidable, but only with a more mature strategy. 7. Finally, I would close by echoing what Jeannette has said. Do not underestimate how fragile this process is, and how precarious our own roles in Internet governance are. One of the easiest things for governments to do is to sponsor the kind of annual conference that has gone on at IGF. There are no outcomes that require negotiation and the sharing of power. It is cheap. CS stakeholders who come to these events very quickly fall in love with the sense of power, the meetings in exotic places, and so on. Competition for scarce travel resources automatically pits one against the other, which acts to prevent a unified position. Civil society has a real risk of capture, in a process that will not deliver what the world’s netizens need. In the meantime, is there real progress in enacting human rights? In getting a fair distribution of power? In halting surveillance? Absent serious metrics and evaluation of how civil society is spending its time and leadership talent, we don’t know. We should ask governments for the money to develop metrics and accountability mechanisms for civil society, we are going to need them. I truly don’t mean to sound negative. The leadership folks have showed at this event was amazing. It was a great honour to be selected to represent you on the HLMC, and it was a great pleasure to participate at this event. I want to thank everyone who worked so hard, and tried so hard to do the right thing. It was a great success, in my view. I am not trying to spoil it by issuing warnings, I am trying to suggest that we need to be up a notch when the next event comes along. We need to be ready. Lots more work required :-) Stephanie Perrin From avri at acm.org Thu May 1 02:11:54 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 08:11:54 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <5361E096.5070901@acm.org> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361E096.5070901@acm.org> Message-ID: <5361E5AA.9090604@acm.org> Hi, One further point. After the discussion of the points that had originally been presented on behalf of a group of WGEC Members and Observers (Avri Doria, Grace Githaiga, Lea Kaspar, and Joy Liddicoat) on 12 February 2014 - (copied below), we were asked to review and revise. This is what was presented after that revision effort over lunch. ---- Recommends that existing mechanisms for public policy related Internet issues take into account existing multistakeholder approaches to Internet governance. Recommends that existing multilateral and multistakeholder mechanisms be used to support Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders including governments on an equal footing. Encourages the UN and the global Internet community to identify mechanisms that can facilitate the collection of financial contributions to support the participation/engagement of all stakeholders from developing countries,to ensure that developing countries have equal leadership with developed countries in development of internet policy globally. Encourages and enables developing countries, including both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, to play a more effective role in global Internet governance by developing multistakeholder mechanisms at national and regional level and by democratisation at all levels including the global level. ---- This was rejected by Iran, Saudi Arabia, India and Parminder It received a fair degree of support from other group members, though we were told they would look for some wording changes if it ever got close to consensus. Which it probably won't. avri Original proposal by WGEC Members and Observers (Avri Doria, Grace Githaiga, Lea Kaspar, and Joy Liddicoat) on (12 February 2014) ● No new multilateral arrangements are required to support Enhanced Cooperation in developing countries; ● Encourage the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand internet governance and to make public policy in light of, and taking into account, its multi-stakeholder nature; ● Encourage the UN and the global internet community to identify mechanisms that can facilitate the collection of financial contributions to support the participation/engagement of stakeholder from developing countries, in the perspective of ensuring that developing countries have equal leadership with developed countries in development of internet policy globally. ● Encourage governments of developing countries to foster engagement with Internet governance issues at the national and regional levels. ● Enable developing countries, including both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, to play a more effective role in global Internet governance by developing mechanisms at national and regional level and by democratisation at all level including the global level. From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu May 1 15:04:00 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 15:04:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] english version of Marco Civil Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Please, find attached the english version of Marco Civil I have prepared. You may have gotten a version from me earlier this week, but I have reviewed it once again. Best, Carolina -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPROVED-MARCO-CIVIL-MAY-2014.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 88711 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu May 1 15:08:02 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 21:08:02 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC's response to NETmundial 2014 in Esp. In-Reply-To: <53615429.4030305@apc.org> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> <53615429.4030305@apc.org> Message-ID: <53629B92.8090604@apc.org> And here it is in Spanish - one of our members did a quick translation. http://blog.pangea.org/2014/05/netmundial-2/ Anriette On 30/04/2014 21:51, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Response from the Association for Communications on the outcome of > NETMUndial 2014. > > Anriette > > http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224/ > > By (APC) > Johannesburg, April 2014 > > NETmundial was a remarkable and historic event. To give it its due and > build on it going forward, it is necessary to acknowledge its > achievements as well as its flaws. > > *Affirming the “publicness” of the internet: Gains and gaps* > The NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement > > represents substantial progress towards public interest-driven > internet governance. It recognises the internet as a common resource > that should be managed in the public interest. “Public good”, or > Neelie Kroes’ term > , > “global, common, public resource”, would have been preferable, but > this is nevertheless a powerful step towards protecting the > “publicness” of the internet. > > Linked to this is affirmation of the value of openness and > interoperability, of “permissionless innovation”, and the need to > support public access to the internet (one of APC’s priorities). It is > disappointing, however, that protection for intermediaries from > liability was mentioned not as a precondition of protecting rights > such as free expression and association, but as linked to “economic > growth, innovation, creativity and free flow of information”. There > can be little doubt that this text expresses the interest of the > entertainment industry. APC believes this framing opens the door to > requiring internet intermediaries to enforce intellectual property > rights in ways that interfere with rights to free expression and > access to knowledge. > > Consensus was not reached on network neutrality, or the principle of > free flow of information, and non-discriminatory flow of data packets > across the network. This was ironic, as this principle was enshrined > in the Brazilian Marco Civil da Internet > > (Civil Rights Framework for the Internet), enacted by President Dilma > Rousseff during the opening of NETMundial. While not discounting the > commercial interests at stake in avoiding inclusion of network > neutrality as a principle, its discussion is also complicated by > different definitions of what the concept means, and of how it applies > in various contexts. We applaud that the NETmundial Statement roadmap > identifies net neutrality as an area for further discussion and look > forward to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) taking this up in the > near future. > > We would have liked to see more reference to development, social > justice, the integration of the concerns of people from the developing > world, and the role the internet can play to support a more just and > sustainable world. Quoting from Nnenna Nwakanma’s inspiring opening > speech : “The Internet is > fast becoming the dominant means for wealth creation. The ‘Right to > Development’ needs to include social justice. It is not enough to do a > superficial ‘capacity building’ for a few persons. We are looking at a > mechanism that allows for the highest number of persons to be > included, the largest number of voices to be heard, the widest extent > of talents to access innovation, and the deepest creativity of the > human minds to flourish. For these, we need to start considering the > Internet as public commons.” > > *Human rights apply offline and online!* > NETmundial identified fundamental human rights as key principles for > internet governance and states that governments have specific > accountability for upholding and protecting individual human rights on > the internet. We applaud this, but believe that the roadmap section of > the document needed to consider internet-specific aspects of human > rights protection in greater detail ‒ in particular, rights which are > needed to ensure free expression and association on the internet such > as the right to anonymity and the right to use encryption. > > *Deepening democracy in multi-stakeholder internet governance* > A further breakthrough in the document is recognition that internet > governance needs to be democratic as well as multi-stakeholder, and > that the former is not necessarily synonymous with the latter. It > identified the need for mechanisms that ensure accountability, review > and redress in internet governance, as well as for gender balance in > discussions and decision making. > > The NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement builds positively on the > Tunis Agenda in > its recognition that stakeholder groups do not always have fixed > roles, but that these “respective roles and responsibilities of > stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference > to the issue under discussion.” This paves the way for constructive > discussion of the specific roles of stakeholders in different parts of > the internet governance ecosystem, with reference to the issue and > process under discussion. In other words, rather than talk about > whether governments should have a role or not, we can focus on what > this role is and where and when it is most needed. > > *Mass surveillance: The elephant that left the room* > Most disappointing is that mass surveillance was not condemned more > strongly in the final version of the Statement, with some of the > governmental participants insisting at the last minute that the phrase > “mass surveillance is fundamentally inconsistent with the right to > privacy and the principle of proportionality” be removed from the > document. > > Considering that the event emerged from outrage following Edward > Snowden’s revelations, and that mass surveillance was cited as a major > concern in inputs received on the draft documents, this issue can best > be described as the elephant which started out inside the room, but > which was then lifted and carried out ‒ by suitably powerful forces ‒ > before the event’s conclusion. > > The document does state that “mass and arbitrary surveillance > undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance > ecosystem” and cooperation – forced or voluntary – between states and > business is addressed by the requirement that the “collection and > processing of personal data by state and non-state actors should be > conducted in accordance with international human rights law,” but this > does not address the protection of individual rights that are violated > on an extraterritorial basis. > > Also included is a renewed call upon states from the 2013 UN General > Assembly Resolution > > for the review of “their procedures, practices and legislation > regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and > collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception > and collection,.with a view to upholding the right to privacy by > ensuring the full and effective implementation of all their > obligations under international human rights law.” This provides an > opening for follow-up action which rights activists should pursue with > vigour. > > *IANA accountability* > We are encouraged that the issue of Internet Assigned Numbers > Authority (IANA) accountability will be an integral part of the > discussions on the National Telecommunications and Information > Administration (NTIA) transition. We look forward to the continuation > of the process once the terms of the accountability process are > published. We rely on the unfolding of a neutral process to review the > accountable transition of IANA stewardship with the full participation > of all global stakeholders and with due consideration given to the > importance of structural separation between policy and operational levels. > > *What was avoided?* > The most striking absence at NETmundial, in spite of several > submissions raising this as a concern, is a call to put a stop to the > increasing militarisation of the internet. Clearly this is an issue > that should be taken up through the IGF process. > > *NETmundial as a process: Leaps, lessons and let-downs* > We want to express our appreciation for the hard work that the > organising team put into the NETmundial process, in particular CGI.br > and the event chairperson, Virgilio A. F. Almeida, Secretary for > Information Technology Policy of the Ministry of Science, Technology > and Innovation of Brazil. > > NETmundial represents great leaps forward for multi-stakeholder > decision making, building on inclusive, multi-stakeholder habits > developed during eight editions of the IGF, and providing useful > lessons for the future. More time and better planning was needed to > integrate inputs – received through an excellent online platform – > into the final outcome documents. It would also have been good to use > the face-to-face event for more discussion rather than for > open-microphone sessions in which most of what had been said online > already was repeated. Drafting of the outcome document could also have > been done in a more systematic manner, ensuring that people with the > necessary area knowledge were available to the chairs of the two > drafting groups (Principles and Roadmap). > > The let-down was that at the end, when the pre-final text was being > presented to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee, the process > suddenly felt quite familiar, as, at the last minute, a few > governments insisted on changes to the text, demanding either > deletions or modifications to statements that they were not > comfortable with. We understand that government representatives are > constrained by instructions from their capitals or by existing > agreements; but if we are to deepen democracy in global internet > governance, we do need to find ways to move beyond these constraints > when finalising such a non-binding document, as they serve to limit > more balanced stakeholder input and influence. > > If powerful governments, whose views often coincide with those of some > parts of internet industry, can still exercise a veto – even if > informally – at the last minute, we have quite a way to go towards > fully inclusive and democratic internet governance. Intergovernmental > processes are often criticised for producing lower common denominator > consensus agreements. Democratic, multi-stakeholder decision-making > processes must strive to avoid this. > > *What next?* > There is much to celebrate. A group of very diverse stakeholders > worked together to produce a document which has the potential to > create a more robust and human rights- and public interest-oriented > approach to internet policy and management. The Government of Brazil > showed grace, leadership and deep commitment to inclusive processes by > being willing to concede on a range of issues, most particularly > network neutrality. > > The question now is: What next? How do we follow through to implement > the good in the NETmundial document and how do we strengthen the > existing IGF to play a role in this? Surveillance is the obvious place > to start, with governments heeding the call to review all collection, > processing and surveillance of personal data to ensure that these > processes comply with human rights standards, such as the ones stated > in the Necessary and Proportionate principles > . Promoting awareness of > the issues behind the network neutrality debate are also a ripe area > for focus, as they provide a valuable entry point into a number of > basic challenges in dealing with conflict of interest around private > enterprise and promoting the publicness of the internet. > > And of course we cannot rest until, as the declaration states, we have > “universal, equal opportunity, affordable and high quality Internet > access”, so that we can all participate more equally in the debate. > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu May 1 16:04:38 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 16:04:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Exactly! SP On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. For instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. When you get support of government so well (as exhibited at NetMundial) you can at least leave the event with assurance that your voice was heard (and not when you make the noise in isolation) > > Thanks > > Cheers! > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. > By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. > Kind regards, > Stephanie > > On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >> Thanks for your answer and interest, >> >> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? >> >> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? >> >> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. >> >> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : >> >>> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >>>> >>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>> >>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >>>> >>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >>>> >>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>>> >>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >>>> >>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >>>> >>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> Post-scriptum: >>>> John, >>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>>> >>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>>>> >>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>>> >>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>>> >>>>> /John >>>>> >>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Thu May 1 16:42:09 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 22:42:09 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <73D2C42E-D6FF-46FA-A6BF-1544C99ED57A@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <73D2C42E-D6FF-46FA-A6BF-1544C99ED57A@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: For what it is worth: when it comes to surveillance, I think there is a lot of possible common ground between many companies and civil society at a high level. Perhaps in something like MLAT reform real collaboration is possible. I think we should explore what we can do together. On 1 May 2014, at 20:51, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Dear all, I have hesitated to wade into this discussion, but I think as I was one of your elected/chosen representatives on the HLMC, I have a responsibility to clarify a few things, and express my views. > > 1. Firstly, thanks to Jeannette for the very good summary below. It is clear to me that even though there were many civil society representatives in the meeting between the HLMC and the HMC, many did not realize how close we were to losing the entire game at the 11th hour. Document, strong wording, and (most importantly) the ability to declare the process of Netmundial a success, a conference which moved so many yardsticks in a positive direction, nearly went out the window. This would have been, in my view, pretty close to a catastrophe, on a number of levels, but particularly for the Brazilian government, who had shown true leadership in proposing this conference and in linking up the world. This fact, that we nearly lost everything, was clear to many (most?) governments, who came up to me after I intervened to isolate the representative of the Indian government at that meeting. That it was not clear to civil society, in my view, is a matter of deep concern. I am not looking for thanks, I am just wondering about our collective political maturity. > 2. Having said that, I would like to thank Carlos for his support for my interventions. Let me be clear, I was perfectly happy with the very dignified expression of dissent and disappointment that Niels delivered, but it was not my place to deliver it. As a member of the HLMC, which was the forum to contain governments, it was important that I delivered a balanced message, and left on a note that declared victory for our Brazilian hosts. > 3. Thirdly, while we had an excellent civil society meeting on the day before the conference, truly well organized and stimulating, we did not leave there clear on either the process or the strategy. I would respectfully suggest that this was a serious omission. What were our goals? was it to craft a strong document? was it to find allies in the room, to help us advance our roles and responsibilities beyond the holding pen we were placed in at Tunis? was it to endorse a new kind of multi-stakeholder model? It is vitally important, when preparing for a complex meeting like this one, that we establish some kind of rough consensus on what we are trying to achieve, and how we plan to achieve that. Time was not on our side, but we still needed goals, strategy and tactics. > 4. Fourthly, we need to have an accurate picture of risk, and how it is escalating in the current global environment. I was very struck by something that Anja Kovacs said at the Toronto conference Cyber-dialogues, immediately after the ICANN Singapore meeting. She said, I am not going to encourage my stakeholders, poor and disenfranchised folks, to get on the Internet and use ICT, if all it is going to do is set them up to be surveilled and controlled. Indeed. I believe this is a serious threat. How does one control that threat? Not by alienating governments. They need to buy into the multi-stakeholder process, and this was a golden opportunity to persuade them that it does not hurt. When I hear the very thoughtful Indian government representative repeating on the podium and in the room, "we have learned a lot from this meeting", we need to wonder (and find out) just exactly what he learned. If what he is saying, is that it will be a cold day in hell when we come back to a meeting such as this, then our stakeholders in India have lost a round. > 5. Please pardon me for lecturing folks who have been in this game a long time, but if you think governments (and powerful corporations who control them) are anxious to expose themselves to criticism from strident civil society representatives, you are mistaken. The control that western governments exert, those who believe in vigorous free speech and discourse with their critics as a general rule, is waning. For the sake of those billions of existing and potential netizens living in the new and burgeoning economies of the BRICS, and the many other countries who look to the Internet for growth, representatives of civil society have a serious responsibility to consider how their actions and words are going to be interpreted, and brought home to capitals. Fine for those of us living in Europe and North America to say things that annoy our government and business partners, but we must be mindful that we could be delivering the powerless into the hands of those who would like to control them and take every shred of power from them. This does not mean civil society must be toothless or weak, it means we must be careful, deliberative, consultative, and strong. We have right on our side, we don’t need to act with precipitate haste, or anger. We need to consider the long view, and the long game. We need to look statesmanlike. > 6. In this sense, my priority was not the text. It was and is the process. Sometimes, it is vital to determine prior to a meeting such as this one, exactly what each stakeholder (I mean the various governments, our hosts, the business caucuses, entities such as ICANN) need to get out of the meeting. This will then determine how much you push for in the text, and how you play it. Business knows this. I think we overplayed our hand, drew the governments out unnecessarily, and this allowed the IP constituency to get more than they deserved. This was avoidable, but only with a more mature strategy. > 7. Finally, I would close by echoing what Jeannette has said. Do not underestimate how fragile this process is, and how precarious our own roles in Internet governance are. One of the easiest things for governments to do is to sponsor the kind of annual conference that has gone on at IGF. There are no outcomes that require negotiation and the sharing of power. It is cheap. CS stakeholders who come to these events very quickly fall in love with the sense of power, the meetings in exotic places, and so on. Competition for scarce travel resources automatically pits one against the other, which acts to prevent a unified position. Civil society has a real risk of capture, in a process that will not deliver what the world’s netizens need. In the meantime, is there real progress in enacting human rights? In getting a fair distribution of power? In halting surveillance? Absent serious metrics and evaluation of how civil society is spending its time and leadership talent, we don’t know. We should ask governments for the money to develop metrics and accountability mechanisms for civil society, we are going to need them. > > I truly don’t mean to sound negative. The leadership folks have showed at this event was amazing. It was a great honour to be selected to represent you on the HLMC, and it was a great pleasure to participate at this event. I want to thank everyone who worked so hard, and tried so hard to do the right thing. It was a great success, in my view. I am not trying to spoil it by issuing warnings, I am trying to suggest that we need to be up a notch when the next event comes along. We need to be ready. Lots more work required :-) > Stephanie Perrin > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu May 1 18:13:56 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 00:13:56 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] CS dialogue over visions of future eco-system for the governance of Internet In-Reply-To: <5362BE53.5070209@cgi.br> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> <5362BE53.5070209@cgi.br> Message-ID: Dear Harmut, Thanks for that. To avoid any misunderstanding, Netmundial was officially supported by CGI.br and ICANN. Right? Do we have any breakdown? Does CGI.br receive money from the Brazilian government, and/or private corporations and foundations? Correct? Just to have a clear picture. As you kindly give us an information regarding funding, I am asking these questions just for the record, as my primary intention is to see how we could have a specific dialogue with other CS regarding the different visions of what could be a complete new eco-system for the governance of Internet. What would it be in 2020 let's say. This would not require any specific expenses. That would require willingness, time and openness. But this would not be per say a multistakeholder thing. It would a multiparty CS process. I am curious to see if CS can gain over some common ground. It seems like some CS (see previous emails from Stephanie, Seun) already consider that it would be impossible to do so, - as everything is so intertwined with other stakeholders - talking to each other in CS would isolate CS from other stakeholders - it might upset hosting power, or other stakeholders, that are presently listening to CS. So in order not to lose these friendly ears, CS could avoid looking for a "free word" that could endanger their current cooperation with other stakeholders. I am trying to keep up with arguments but might still be wrong in my wrapping-up, and therefore happy to be corrected. Happy as well to have more comments and opinions. I will shortly provide a short state of the current CS visions. Best to you as well, JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor and head of strategy at GLOBAL_GENEVA jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 1 mai 2014 à 23:36, Hartmut Richard Glaser a écrit : > > Dear All, > > To avoid any misunderstanding, the financial support in Brazil for NETmundial was NOT from government, but > was from CGI.br, a non-for-profit multistakeholder entity. > > best > > Hartmut Glaser > > ==================================== > On 01/05/14 17:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> Exactly! >> SP >> On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>> And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. For instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. When you get support of government so well (as exhibited at NetMundial) you can at least leave the event with assurance that your voice was heard (and not when you make the noise in isolation) >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. >>> By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my apologies. >>> Kind regards, >>> Stephanie >>> >>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for your answer and interest, >>>> >>>> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? >>>> >>>> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have an open debate over different eco-systems? >>>> >>>> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. >>>> >>>> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are referring to. >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : >>>> >>>>> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >>>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is great. However I think we should remember that civil society without support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >>>>>> >>>>>> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >>>>>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>>>>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>>>>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>>>>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >>>>>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw process - from the very beginning. >>>>>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >>>>>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any serious objective >>>>>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>>>>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and un-solved. >>>>>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the old colonial times. >>>>>> >>>>>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious power in the game. It is not the case today. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC will keep growing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) and a World Internet Organization are the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and addressing. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major concern)? >>>>>> >>>>>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>>>>> >>>>>> JC >>>>>> >>>>>> Post-scriptum: >>>>>> John, >>>>>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for the Internet governance? >>>>>> >>>>>> JC >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in between. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>>>>>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>>>>>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>>>>>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>>>>>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>>>>>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>>>>>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>>>>>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>>>>>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>>>>>> that we've just very successfully created. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Seun Ojedeji, >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> >>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From squ24n at gmail.com Thu May 1 19:29:17 2014 From: squ24n at gmail.com (Borami Kim) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 08:29:17 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] The South Korean civil society response to NETmundial Message-ID: Dear all, In South Korea, we issued a joint NGO statement on NETmundial below. Best regards, Borami english version -> http://nnforum.kr/87 korean version -> http://www.ccej.or.kr/index.php?document_srl=405849 *The South Korean Civil Society Statement on NETmunidal* *This is a new chapter in building participatory and democratic Internet governance* *We welcome the Multistakeholders' Declaration of Sao Paulo* On 23-24, April, a global multistakeholder meeting on Internet governance , “NETmundial,” was held to discuss the Internet Governance Principles and future approaches in Sao Paulo, Brazil. This meeting was considered historic in that it enabled multistakeholder participation during the process, enabling governments, civil societies, private sectors, technical communities, and academia, etc., to participate in the process of determining the final resulting content of meeting. Over 180 contributing opinions were submitted during the opinion submission phase before the conference, and the “draft outcome document” that was prepared by the Executive Multistakeholder Committee based on the contributions produced over 1370 comments prior to the actual meeting. The two-day face-to-face meeting also provided open-microphone opprtunities for the respective stakeholders to voice additional opinions. The final document, the “Net-mundial Multistakeholders' Declaration of Sao Paulo” on Internet governance was praised by many to be the result of an unprecedented process of global multistakeholder participation, and was accepted through a rough consensus. *The first global declaration based on a rough consensus of multistakeholders* A key concept that was included in the title of the meeting was “Multistakeholder” which means that multistakeholders, i.e., the government, civil societies, technical communities and academias, and the individual users can participate in the Internet public policy decision-making process with equal status and in a democratically participatory fashion. When we consider the fact that existing “international declarations” have been issued exclusively either by intergovernmental/international bodies or by global civil societies, the Sao Paulo declaration takes on the special status of being the first global ‘multistakeholder’ declaration where relevant stakeholders were given horizontal status during the deliberation process and were able to arrive at a general consensus in an open and transparent manner. However, this goal of multistakeholder consensus inevitably resulted in a final declaration not being able to accommodate many of the important issues that were supported by civil societies. Adoption of a clear statement endorsing net neutrality was passed over to future discussions, and we had to accept general statements on human rights that did not touch on specific and importanrt human rights clauses for freedom of expression, privacy, etc. In addition, the final document contained limited wording against mass surveillance although the Brazillian president’s UN speech denouncing mass surveillance by the US had been one of the main stimulants behind the current meeting and demands that mass surveillance and surveillance of the telecommunications network in general be banned had been one of the important issues that had been proposed for the meeting. Despite the above limitations, we believe that this declaration is the result of a successful experiment, providing a cornerstone model for making the Internet public policy decision-making processes to be more transparent, democratic, and cooperative by allowing the participation of various players. The shortcomings that were revealed during this meeting should be amended and improved through future fora flexibly for discussing Internet governance such as the IGF. *The South Korean government recognizes the need for a system of multistakeholder participation at the national level.* The multistakeholder approach was identified as one of the most important principles at the national as well as the global level during this meeting. It was observed that Brazil was able to take on the role of being the host of this meeting because of their domestic multistakeholder Internet policy body, the CGI.br, and members of this organization played principal roles in organizing and administering the details of this meeting. In addition, the culmination of one of the achievements of CGI.br that was reached through a bottom-up process was proudly displayed to the global community when the Brazilian president signed the national Marco Civil during the opening ceremony of NETmundial. The South Korean government also publicly declared support for the Multistakeholder model in their contributing statement prior to the meeting as well as in the statements made by the governmental representatives during this meeting. We praise this stance of the Korean government as acknowledging the necessity for the existance of a multistakeholder participatory policy body on Internet governance, in line with the recommendations of the Sao Paulo declaration. Thus, we would like to suggest that we begin collaborative discussions on the formation of a domestic multistakeholder Internet governance body similar to CGI.br. As major representatives of the South Korean civil society, we would like to express our support for the democratic multistakeholder process that was proposed in NETmundial and declare our committment to achieving this goal not only at the global level but also at the domestic level, in cooperation with the various stakeholders. *Thanks, Edward Snowden* The breaches on human rights through mass surveillance by many governments that were exposed as a result of Edward Snowden’s revelations caused a huge outrage among the global Internet users. The denouncement of such activities by global Internet users provided the impetus for this meeting in Brazil. We believe that Snowden has enabled the activities of ordinary Internet users around us - those that exist peacefully on the Internet, living, loving, working and dedicating their individual expertise - to be recognized as major sources behind the creation of an Internet based on protecting human rights and contributing to a global, resilient, trustworthy, open and flexible Internet. In this regard, the civil society of Korea would like to express our deep appreciation to the courage of Edward Snowden for inspiring such discussions. We hope Snowden gets back home safe. 2014. 4. 28. 경실련(CCEJ, Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice) 망중립성 이용자 포럼(Net Neutrality User Forum) 오픈넷 (Opennet) 진보네트워크센터(Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet) 프라이버시 워킹그룹(Privacy Working Group Korea) 함께하는시민행동 (Citizens’ Action Network) *Reference* The Multistakeholders’ Decaration of Sao Paulo http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/ The Korean Civil Society statement submitted to NETmundial http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/korean-civil-society-submission-for-netmundial/146 The South Government statement submitted to NETmundial http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/the-korean-government-s-submission-for-netmundial/255 Nnenna Nwakanma speech https://bestbits.net/nnenna-netmundial/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 1 23:19:19 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 04:19:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: CS dialogue over visions of future eco-system for the governance of Internet In-Reply-To: References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642247@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8C671491-E330-4D19-B125-971F3B55C6A8@theglobaljournal.net> <3487DF4E-87EB-4CE5-A819-C4D20197C062@mail.utoronto.ca> <3EEB6AF2-108C-48F6-B57B-A56F69A1E186@theglobaljournal.net> <5362BE53.5070209@cgi.br> Message-ID: Although funding was not the initial subject of this discussion, however since it's been raised I think its an important factor and will be good to follow up on it. While we await that response (if he indeed has the clearance to release such information), I think it's important to note the following: - CGI.br is a purpose built government establishment - it's management composition (committee) formation is almost 50% represented by other government established department. - CGI.br just like any other not-for-profit rely on donor for funding and most of them come from govt and business - Government is not a particular department. Just like when we say NTIA did this, we are actually talking about US govt. Will be good to know how many civil society organisations generates significant funds through other means aside govt and private sector (business) Cheers! - sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 May 2014 23:14, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > Dear Harmut, > > Thanks for that. To avoid any misunderstanding, Netmundial was officially > supported by CGI.br and ICANN. Right? Do we have any breakdown? Does > CGI.br receive money from the Brazilian government, and/or private > corporations and foundations? Correct? Just to have a clear picture. > > As you kindly give us an information regarding funding, I am asking these > questions just for the record, as my primary intention is to see how we > could have a specific dialogue with other CS regarding the different > visions of what could be a complete new eco-system for the governance of > Internet. What would it be in 2020 let's say. This would not require any > specific expenses. That would require willingness, time and openness. But > this would not be per say a multistakeholder thing. It would a multiparty > CS process. I am curious to see if CS can gain over some common ground. It > seems like some CS (see previous emails from Stephanie, Seun) already > consider that it would be impossible to do so, > - as everything is so intertwined with other stakeholders > - talking to each other in CS would isolate CS from other stakeholders > - it might upset hosting power, or other stakeholders, that are presently > listening to CS. So in order not to lose these friendly ears, CS could > avoid looking for a "free word" that could endanger their current > cooperation with other stakeholders. > > I am trying to keep up with arguments but might still be wrong in my > wrapping-up, and therefore happy to be corrected. Happy as well to have > more comments and opinions. > > I will shortly provide a short state of the current CS visions. > > Best to you as well, > > JC > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor and head of strategy at GLOBAL_GENEVA > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > > Le 1 mai 2014 à 23:36, Hartmut Richard Glaser a écrit : > > > Dear All, > > To avoid any misunderstanding, the financial support in Brazil for > NETmundial was NOT from government, but > was from CGI.br, a non-for-profit multistakeholder entity. > > best > > Hartmut Glaser > > ==================================== > On 01/05/14 17:04, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Exactly! > SP > On May 1, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > And i wasn't referring to this either, support goes beyond the USD. For > instance, the support of Brazil definitely goes beyond cash. When you get > support of government so well (as exhibited at NetMundial) you can at least > leave the event with assurance that your voice was heard (and not when you > make the noise in isolation) > > Thanks > > Cheers! > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> The reality that I was referring to is captured in this sentence: *However >> I think we should remember that civil society without support from others >> (most especially government and perhaps business) is just a dream that >> could be far from reality.* >> By support, I meant actually cooperation. IN a multi-stakeholder >> process, you have to accept that there are other stakeholders, and you >> actually have to talk to them and figure out what they need from your >> collective endeavour. That is what I meant. Civil Society cannot do this >> alone. They will achieve little without partners. I was actually not >> referring to financial support, and should have clarified that, my >> apologies. >> Kind regards, >> Stephanie >> >> On May 1, 2014, at 1:27 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal wrote: >> >> Thanks for your answer and interest, >> >> As an independent media editor, I must confess a little surprise to the >> arguments you put on the table. Are you saying that an open dialogue over >> the different visions we can have of a future eco-system could endanger >> your source of funding? "If it did not receive support from the host". Were >> the host in the case of Netmundial, ICANN or Brazil? Any one else? Are you >> not free of your opinion? We know the say: "who pays for the musicians >> chose the music". Do you think the CS in Sao Paulo were concerned with >> pleasing their hosts? But is this what I should understand from that first >> argument? Are CS entities that dependent to their respective mentors and >> hosts? Is this the reality Stephanie refers to? >> >> 2/ Do you see the idea of being independent as a way to endanger the >> success of Netmundial? How shall we measure this success remains to be >> seen. So far, Netmundial has achieved little concrete evidence - I assume >> we can agree on this. The outcome document is not exactly a consensus, and >> some of its language remain fragile to many when concrete changes could be >> envisioned. It is a non binding statement. So where is the danger to have >> an open debate over different eco-systems? >> >> I am trying sincerely to understand what means your message. >> >> The dialogue I am calling for will cost zero. Except for the time to >> put in it. Would you say that participating could be a danger? Thanks for >> correcting me and elaborating a bit about the reality Stephanie and you are >> referring to. >> >> JC >> >> >> >> >> Le 1 mai 2014 à 18:07, Stephanie Perrin a écrit : >> >> +1 A welcome reminder of reality. >> Stephanie Perrin >> On May 1, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >> Aluta continua! The challenge you pose towards the end of your mail is >> great. However I think we should remember that civil society without >> support from others (most especially government and perhaps business) is >> just a dream that could be far from reality. NETMundial would have been >> such a dream if it did not receive support from the host. >> >> So while we get excited about the successes of NETMundial and "threaten" >> the existing IG system(for positive improvement), I think our acts should >> not lean towards being independent but rather towards collaborative >> independence for them overall sustainability of the internet democracy. >> >> Thanks >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> On 1 May 2014 13:26, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: >> >>> I think the reality of Netmundial outcome is still very uncertain. >>> What can we do with a statement that is understood differently by each >>> participant. Faithful to WSIS, Post WSIS, ICANN++, ICANN--... >>> 1. MSism has many faces. We need to know what each of these faces is. >>> Let's have a clear understanding of the many visions - I would not dare >>> speaking about philosophy here, but it should be more of that now. >>> 2. From the many comments, it seems like the CS is not less divided, but >>> more divided. That is a clear defeat, not an achievement of any sort. Even >>> the final statement is now being opposed by some in the CS. Am I amazed? >>> 3. Until CS would be able to reach a zone of possible agreement and >>> common stance, we will stay far far away from achieving any changes. I am >>> among the ones who say that clearly, many years have been lost, thanks to >>> CS division. from that when we read comments from all over >>> 4. Nnenna speech is the critical starting point, not the final outcome >>> document : we are beginning to have more details regarding the overall flaw >>> process - from the very beginning. >>> 5. How could we even think of 2019, when we have a 2015 deadline? >>> 6. IGF is still in jeopardy and with no serious means to pursue any >>> serious objective >>> 7. The fact that Disney was able to obtain through some CS participants >>> a couple of very unexpected changes in the final draft in Netmundial means >>> that there is a lot of danger in the process that needs to be addressed. >>> 8. How can we consider that IGF should take Netmundial as a mode, when >>> from the very beginning they were critical problems, un-addressed, and >>> un-solved. >>> 9. THere are so many diverse reading of the final document, that all of >>> that serves the US status quo, or its version 2.0 being an ICANN/IANA with >>> some global window dressing - open an office here and there, like in the >>> old colonial times. >>> >>> Contrary to what Jeanette's concerns (what if no final outcome >>> document), a crisis might sometimes bring more action and concrete changes; >>> if CS would not lose time to fight for having a seat in the different >>> venues where gov, private sector are playing their game, then CS could come >>> to a common position. Based on this, CS could really represent a serious >>> power in the game. It is not the case today. >>> >>> If I refer to the Just Net Coalition, I see an honest effort to bridge >>> gaps between various players of CS, coming to a strong common stance. JNC >>> will keep growing. >>> >>> Why, instead of waiting 5 years for another Netmundial, wouldn't the >>> CS come together and find this common ground that is so necessary. Out of >>> the I*, out of the 5 eyes, out of governments. There are diverse visions of >>> what could Internet Governance be. John said there was no alternative to >>> the current governance. He is right to ask for that. An alternative has >>> been presented as a submission to Netmundial. Other could emerge from >>> diverse opinions and grounds. This one is fully democratic in essence, and >>> multiparty in elaboration. A World Internet Forum (next stage for IGF) >>> and a World Internet Organization are >>> the natural next steps. An original pair would bring guaranties to many >>> issues. When is it that NetMundial even mention it? It is far from perfect. >>> I am willing to see what a Milton can do, or an Avri, or a jfc, or whoever, >>> and the usual tenants of the monopolistic thinking of ICANN, and their >>> un-fragmented market orientation. One root zone for all under US oversight. >>> Instead of arguing vainly over the IANA transition to ICANN, decided by the >>> USG and ICANN itself, why the CS forces do not confront each other vision >>> of what could be a full eco-system of governance for the Internet now. 2015 >>> is tomorrow and ICANN is aiming at being officially the policy maker of the >>> Internet - so far it was supposed to care only about naming and >>> addressing. >>> >>> In the interest of the public (this is supposed to be the CS major >>> concern)? >>> >>> A little courage, as seen in Nnenna's speech (she said she listened to >>> many to put her words on paper, then in front of the world), would be >>> welcome. We need a CSMundial for Internet. Now. >>> >>> JC >>> >>> Post-scriptum: >>> John, >>> Ready to engage an honest conversation about alternative eco-system for >>> the Internet governance? >>> >>> JC >>> >>> Le 1 mai 2014 à 13:46, John Curran a écrit : >>> >>> On May 1, 2014, at 1:51 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >>> >>> What about starting to think about a Net Mundial II in 2019? This would >>> help to keep some of the working mechanism of Net Mundial Sao Paulo alive >>> and give a perspective (and an alterantive to WSIS 10+ and beyond). Net >>> Mundial could become something like the olympics which takes place in a >>> four or five year cycle with the annual world championship (IGF) in >>> between. >>> >>> >>> If IGF could very quickly evolve to achieve the same models >>> of engagement, and focus, and outcome development, then a >>> repeat in 2019 would be wonderful... >>> >>> If IGF needs more time (for whatever reason) to realize such >>> improvements, then 5 years is a _very long_ time to expect to >>> maintain any momentum. If you had said 2015 (and succeeding >>> years until IGF has evolved accordingly), then we'd be in >>> agreement. It would seem to me that indicating today the plan >>> for a follow-on NETmundial in 2019 would completely hollow out >>> the current momentum and pressure for meaningful IGF reform >>> that we've just very successfully created. >>> >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer: My views alone. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 **alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri May 2 02:03:35 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 08:03:35 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 Message-ID: <53633537.60708@acm.org> Hi, It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of fundamental disagreement: - This is marvelous work that should become a living document - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps. Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and needs further discussion. The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: - among governments - among all stakeholders. One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments and a new body wherein those discussions can be held - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders. Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some point in day 3. As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with some some arguing: - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and there seem to be some such points - we should discuss the various oppositional models. At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only accepting certain text because they expected a document that would include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the points they had just accepted. We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" - a chair's report - a WG group Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven discussions are in todays' world. Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that underlay our discussions. avri PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can correct or amplify this quick report. -------------- next part -------------- Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Wednesday, 30 April 2014 Geneva, Switzerland >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good morning. Good morning. Welcome to the fourth meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I'm really happy to see that there's still some interest. Before we start the meeting, I have some administrative announcements. So everyone is requested to put his name or her name on a sheet, a participation list which is, I think, at the entrance, eventually with the email address. I can see -- and there's no need to repeat -- that members are sitting in the middle and observers at the sides. There are printouts of documents which are available also at the entrance. And the next one is, the secretariat has created the Google Doc site to put updated versions of the documents, and it will be shared amongst us. So those who are members of either the working group or the correspondence group are fine, and those observers who would like to have access, you're kindly requested to put down your email in order to be able for the secretariat to share the document with you. And I think basically that's the administrative part, so without much ado, I start my introductory remarks. First of all, I would like to apologize to you for the uncertainty of the time. We have discussed during last meeting about the time of this meeting and there was some kind of hesitation, and basically the reason we had to move the meeting to this date was the upcoming meeting of the CSTD itself, and this is simply for that reason we had to change it, in order that we can feed into the CSTD session. And the document should be considered whatever the output document will be from this meeting. We had to have some time to process it. So I plan to have this meeting as a three-day meeting, but we are going to go into details later on. Can I have the next slide, please. So as usual, I would like to read out the mandate we have according to the resolution of the U.N. in 2012. The resolution invites the chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation to examine the mandate of the WSIS regarding enhanced cooperation through seeking, compiling, and reviewing inputs from all member states and all other stakeholders, and to make recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate. We have to report to the CSTD in 2014, and our mandate has been reiterated in the resolution of last year of the U.N. General Assembly. Next one. So this is basically the process we are in. The resolution which was taken in 2012 created the working group. We had the inputs from the stakeholders. We started the evaluation, and hopefully we are going to complete the evaluation this time and it will go to the CSTD. Hopefully the CSTD will approve the documents we are going to submit, and it will be taken forward to the ECOSOC and finally to the General Assembly. I would like to remind everyone -- probably you know it as well as I do -- that we are feeding into the WSIS+10 process, and our meeting and our results are very important in this respect. The working modalities I think are clear. We are not going to change them. So we are -- we will be in compliance with the mandate. We have a multistakeholder approach and hopefully we have a mutual trust. We tried to achieve results based on consensus. We have observers who are here according to the ECOSOC rules, and we had the agreement of the working group that, yes, observers can follow our meeting. And of course we have the time constraints, we have the resources constraints, and the venues. All of these are known. And of course we are sharing all the information with the stakeholders. That is, the documents are public, or most of the time we make them public, in case they are in a state that they can be made public. Next one. So we had our first meeting last May. Oh, my goodness, it was a year ago. Whew! As if it were yesterday. A second one was in November. The third one was last February. And this is our fourth one, and hopefully we are going to have the recommendations and the report of the working group, and I believe I'm going to present the report and the recommendations to the 17th session of the CSTD, which is going to be from the 12th to the 16th of May here in the U.N. So just a reminder. Our first meeting, we had a very good collaboration of the participants. We decided the procedural issues. We had two breakout groups, led by Brazil and India. We identified categories for the suggested questions and we identify- -- we finalized the questionnaire based on the results of these breakout groups. Already at that time we had remote participation and audio streaming, and we decided on the next steps. On the second meeting, we discussed the responses to the questionnaire, and there was a summary of the responses which were grouped into five groups. We started with the submission of draft recommendations and there was a discussion about the structure of the report. In the second meeting, we created the correspondence group for the mapping of the existing mechanisms to internal -- international forums. At that time, we had -- in addition to remote participation streaming, we had captioning and transcripts. And once again, I have to underline the excellent collaboration of the participants. So we had our third meeting last February and we discussed draft recommendations in Group A, C, and part of D. We had proposals for the structure of the report. We had a report from the correspondence group for the mapping of existing mechanisms to international forums. And we have to be honest. There was a big, big divergence of opinions. So that's why I suggested to have our fourth meeting, with the hope that in the meantime in other fora such as NETmundial, WSIS+10 meeting, and the ITU -- and at that time, I still hoped that in the U.N. General Assembly -- consultation will lead to some result, but I understand that it's still going on. So -- and with the hope that we are going to have some positive inputs or impulses on our process, we are going to achieve some results. And I think -- I've been following the NETmundial remotely, and probably most of you or all of you have the outcome document of the NETmundial. We can say that it was a very good meeting and I think we are going to have some statement from Brazil about it. Personally, I think it is a good example for us, and in the final document of the NETmundial, there is a paragraph about the hopes of the stakeholders about our work, about the outcome of our work. So it has been emphasized that it is very significant work we are doing here. Next one. Well, probably we can skip that. For the fourth meeting, we have the following resources. The documents we had have been grouped into four documents. We have statements. I asked participants to separate recommendations from statements, so this has been done. We have a document with agreed recommendations, or agreed recommendation. We have a document with recommendations to be revisited. And finally, we have a document where we had no agreement. Next one. We have also the correspondence group's input. We are going to hear a report from the chair of the correspondence group tomorrow. And we have the compilation of the contributions. If I'm not mistaken, we have a printout form which can be collected at the entrance of the room. And in addition to that, we have the transcripts of the previous meetings and you have the Web page for this meeting. Oh, by the way, the presentation will be made available on the Web site, so in case you lose some information, you can always retrieve. Next one. So what are the resources in addition to what I said? Well, we agreed on the structure of the report. There were ongoing discussions and finally we agreed on the following structure of the report. There will be an introductory part. In the second part, we are going to have a description of the meetings and the methodology. And the bulk of the report will be about the operationalizing -- whatever -- enhanced cooperation recommendations for the five groups. And you have the five groups. A, implementation of the Tunis Agenda; B, public policy issues and possible mechanisms; C, role of the stakeholders; D, developing countries; E, barriers for participation in enhanced cooperation; and finally, conclusion. So at least we have the structure, and right now we have to work on the recommendations. Next one. In addition to these resources, I would like to have some short statement or report about other events. First of all, the transition of the NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions, and eventually if the U.S. could give us some very short statement about it. NETmundial. I would like to have some information about the event itself eventually from Brazil. And the WSIS+10 MPP, where we are with that. I understand that it is going well and we are going to have another meeting before the summit, or before the final meeting. And last, but not least, about the IGF preparations for the 9th IGF in Istanbul. So these are the other information which have impact on our work, so I would like to have this information. So how we are going to organize the meeting. Well, first of all, naturally we have to agree on the agenda and the time management. I suggest that we continue with a discussion of the remaining topics in Groups D and E, with the objective to propose recommendations. I would like to have a report from the chair of the correspondence group and have a discussion about the document of the correspondence group which I would call a living document. And after that, I would hike to go back and I would like to revisit recommendations which we said we would be revisiting in Group A and C. In the very unlikely case of diverging opinions -- and if I look at you, I can see that it's very unlikely, because we are going to agree on most of the things, but in case, it has been expressed that eventually opinions should be included in the report. I would like to ask delegations of so-called like-minded groups to formulate these opinions, in case it's needed, and it will be annexed to the report. So we have substantial work to do. We have to do the drafting and we have to finalize the recommendations, and last, but not least, we have to have a consolidated report which I can present to the CSTD basically 10 days from now. Next one. So I would like to ask you to concentrate on substantive discussions. So probably I -- We know each other quite well. We know our opinions quite well and we know our point of views, so I don't really think that it's needed to state again the same statements we had before. We should find ways of understanding and consensus. So basically, I really want to concentrate on the recommendations rather than on statements. So in the report, as I mentioned, we are going to give a factual description of the meetings, we had the accepted structure, and we are going to reflect the agreements, and naturally, as I said, annex the opinions in case of disagreement. Next one. The suggested time management. I suggest the same time management as we had before. That is, from 10:00 to 1:00, we have the morning session. We are going to have an observers' segment before coffee break, a 15 minutes coffee break preceded by this observers' segment. In case you think we should start earlier, I am ready to start earlier. Whether it be half an hour or one hour earlier, it is up to you. We are going to have the lunch break from 1:00 to 3:00. And in the afternoon, we're going to work in a similar way as we work in the morning. That is, from 3:00 to 6:00, and with the 15 minutes observers' segment and 15 minutes coffee break. And once again, if you think that we should work a bit later, we can do it. I'm ready to do it. Next one. So let me call your attention again to our role. We contribute to the WSIS process, recommending ways and means of cooperation. We know the importance of the complexity of the issues and our tasks, and we seek points of agreement and compromise. And of course, as I can see, we are motivated, ambitious, and realistic. Okay. So after that, I think the following point is the agenda has been posted on the Web site. Basically, it's almost the same as we had before. Are there any observations that we can follow our work in the same way? I can see no -- Yes, Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, colleagues. We do have an observation on the third item. I mean, there is lots of events happening around us. We should focus on our mandate, not to be, I mean, confused by other events or divert in our way of work, but just focus on the mandate. We do have a mandate in here. Others are doing things according to their mandates, so it's kind of parallel or separate issues between each event. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. That exactly was my intent. I want to emphasize that we want to have information, nothing else. It's just to have some information what has happened around us and how we are going to feed into the WSIS+10 process. It is not going to influence directly our work. Naturally indirectly, of course, it will. But that is exactly my intent. And I underline it's information. Iran. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you. Good morning to everybody. I hope everybody is well. Yes, nobody is against the dissemination of the information. The document that you refer to, NETmundial, is on the Web site, is on the table. Thank you very much, and kindly the Secretariat made it available for those who like me lazy to go to the Web site. Very good. And that's that. So we don't need to refer to that because that is a different event of a different basis, different background, different views, and so on so forth. So it is better you concentrate the time that you mentioned on the issue before you. Otherwise you may run the risk of unnecessary discussions. So thank you very much for the -- for the submission or provision of document on the table. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. As I mentioned, I want to have as information and probably the group will take note of that and that's it. Avri, you wanted to -- >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to sort of offer a -- other view on this and sort of say that we really can't ignore what is going on in global discussions that included governments on the same topic. So I understand the desire to ignore what has happened in the intervening time, but I really do not believe that we can afford to, otherwise we work in a vacuum really and I do not believe that we can afford to do so. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair, and very good morning to everyone in the room. And welcome back to Geneva for all of those who are coming from outside. At the outset, Mr. Chair, I would like to make two submissions. I think there are definitely significant developments taking place on the overall Internet governance per se and I think it's important we all in our diligent capacities must take note of those developments. There are no two words about it. Then secondly, given the time and type of mandate we have been given in this working group, those acknowledgments can come to our interventions rather than being presented as part of this working group process. Our specific mandate is slightly one dimension of Internet governance. If we try to stretch ourselves too much, assuming that there are implications coming out of various other processes, then we might lose focus and we might be, as you rightly observed in the beginning, the time is not at our disposal. So we would like to be really restraining ourselves in seeing what is relevant to this particular working group, and I tend to see the caution that is being advised by some of the colleagues in the room, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran. I think that is particularly important. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. As I told you, I have no intent to take on any discussion what has happened in other meetings. Just factual information, what was the outcome and then two, three minutes by the (indiscernible) country. Kavouss. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: I wonder if there is a representative of the Brazilian government here. Yeah, there is. Okay. I think it would be interesting to hear him to have a basic information that you are requesting about NETmundial. And I can give some comments, maybe after, could make a statement, is my suggestion. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. I can sense and it's -- I tend to agree with that, probably we shouldn't have a detailed discussion about what has happened in other forums and we should just have some information about it and take note of that and carry on with our work. That is my aim. Probably I didn't express myself clearly, but I understand this is the wish of some other members of the group and I tend to agree with that. Simply we have this kind of information during our last meeting. I don't intend to go beyond that. I just want to have some factual information, what has happened and that's it. And in the same way I would like to have some information about the WSIS+10 meeting in the ITU, about the ITU process, and eventually the NTIA process, which does have some affect on our work. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman, and good morning to our colleagues. We have now spent eight minutes discussing whether or not we would allow our visiting colleague to make a few remarks regarding the Sao Paulo meeting, and according to our agenda five minutes were set out for such a briefing. I think it's worth reflecting upon. Thank you, Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Very practical remark. Thank you. Marilyn. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. My name is Marilyn Cade. I'm one of the business participants. I would like to support the idea of brief informational statements which are not discussed but are available to all of us. I think as someone who is participating in the WSIS+10 and also in the Istanbul IGF I'm aware -- I was able to attend NETmundial, not everyone was able to. I think short reports from all of the parties that you suggested without discussion will help us then to move forward, and I welcome Mr. Reddy's suggestion that then any other statements that we make can take place during our -- our individual interventions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. U.S. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would agree particularly with that final comment that as our distinguished Indian colleague said that we should not turn this into a debate on that forum and that any other comments would be woven into the discussion, but we would welcome a short factual briefing on this as we -- we would not disagree with those who say that this group has its own mandate but we all know that that mandate does not take place in isolation and when other significant and related events are going on we would welcome hearing a short briefing on them. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Victoria. >>VICTORIA ROMERO: Thank you, Chair. Good morning to everybody, and my affiliation to support your proposal of having a briefing on NETmundial and would support also what has been presented by other delegations. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Can I ask Brazil to give us a three minutes presentation because we have (indiscernible) meeting. Go ahead. >>BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I would like to thank for this opportunity to brief on NETmundial. The event was highly successful in drawing attention to the importance of the Internet governance and its future and hopefully it will provide some inputs to move forward the work of the WGEC. Many had recognized that NETmundial in terms of procedure and substance fully respected the multistakeholder principle. There was a fairly balanced presence of the various stakeholders. Of the total participants representing over 90 countries, 19% were from government, 20% from the private sector, 20% from academic and technical communities, and 22% from the Civil Society. It is worth emphasizing the transparency in the process of elaboration and review of the final document. Both in the preparatory stages and in the course of the event. From our viewpoint the NETmundial multistakeholder statement gains legitimacy in the eyes of the international community since it resulted from an effort that involved the full participation of all stakeholders. As to its substance, the statement may represent an important contribution to advancing international discussions on Internet governance as it established a set of universal principles to guide such discussions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to give a very short, succinct statement. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Basically that's what we wanted to hear. I believe we can move forward and I would like to have some -- Iran, you wanted to take -- it's okay. Can I have some briefing about the WSIS+10, where we are with that. >>Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to all delegates. It's my pleasure to update you on the interpretive process of the WSIS+10 high level event and there are only 40 days remaining to the high level event which will be held of the 10-15 of June in Geneva. And the preparatory process also already approaches its end. We held just from the 14-17 of April the fourth physical meeting which concluded. We've come to conclusions on a few chapters of the two outcome documents, meaning the statement and our vision. So in the statement, most of the text has been agreed. The annex is going to be still under discussion and the Switzerland has been requested to facilitate the consensus building on the listing of the human rights regulated resolutions. On the vision, unfortunately due to the time constraints we didn't arrive to the end of the reading and the chapters on the action lines and on the measurements has been postponed to be addressed during the fifth physical meeting. And the Chairman, together with the vice chairs and in cooperation with the action line facilitators and the focal point has been requested to propose the possible text, concise text for those chapters to make this possible during the next meeting. Next meeting has been reconfirmed to be held from the 28 to 31 of May, so four-days meeting, and it's my pleasure to reconfirm also the commitment of the WIPO to have this meeting. So as we got direct confirmation of this just today and the registration is open from today for this meeting. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, (indiscernible). Iran, you want to make some comment? >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm seeking a point of clarification. Did we agree on the agenda? >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think I -- I asked the question if you have observation concerning the agenda, and I could see no -- yes, I did. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think some of the colleagues in the room made the reservation or observation on some matters in the agenda, and I think it's better to, I mean, go ahead with their concerns on the matter, that's the first issue. Second, Mr. Chairman, if we are really going to hear the briefings on the meetings we had, which is related to the subject of our meeting, it's better to change the agenda. Instead of having NETmundial briefing, we can put another language which is referring to the old -- to the old meeting and in general. Not to recognize just one out of all and to hear the briefing of all meetings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Jafar, I'm very sorry. Probably it's my mistake. I should have enumerated that I wanted to, as we did last time, to hear from WSIS+10 and IGF. That's what we did last time and there was no problem with it, so that is my intention as well. There's no other thing I want to do. Can we go further? I just want to hear two words about the IGF, upcoming IGF, and then we can continue with our substantive work. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. I think we have no difficulty with the way that was presented, but not on the agenda NETmundial briefing. In the agenda you have introductory remarks and the page, the information provided to us under introductory remark without referring to any particular meeting in the agenda. Introductory remark refers to many things and then also we were very happy, very happy to hear from the host of the meeting in the introductory remark under a general agenda item which is exactly in line but not refer to it because if you refer to the meeting, there are pros and cons and we have to go to the discussions and we may not be finishing our work. So let us just minimize that introductory remark. So in your agenda if you want to approve the agenda, the first item is that remark by you and then the second item is discussion on the proposals and so on, so forth after the approval of the agenda. But we don't want to put this item because there are many issues that we have to mention. We may or may not agree with several things. So let us not to have that discussion and that is the first one. If you want to go to the agenda, approval of agenda. Otherwise we would have difficulty with that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: It is not clear to me now, you suggest that it would be part of the introductory remarks that we are having now, this is some briefing even, that's your suggestion, without pointing out the meetings. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Chair, I fear I was not clear. In the introductory remark there would be information about the meeting by the host of the meeting. That's all. We have no problem. We respect our distinguished colleagues from the Brazilian government administration and they are free like any of us to give any information that they wish. But under introductory remarks. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. So probably we shall strike that from the agenda and we don't spell it out. Okay. Having said that, can we have within the introductory remark some information about the IGF. >>CHENGETAI MASANGO: Thank you very much, Chair. The Istanbul IGF is still on board for 2-5 September, 2014. In case I didn't say what the main theme was last time, it is Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance. And during our last term Open Consultations we agreed on eight sub-themes which were policies enabling access, content creation, dissemination, and use, the Internet as engine for growth and development, fourth was IGF and the future of the Internet ecosystem. Fifth, enhancing digital trust. Six, Internet and human rights. Seventh was critical Internet resources, and eight, emerging issues. We also issued a call for workshop proposals and we received 210 workshop proposals, and at the present moment the MAG is going through them to evaluate them and we have to choose roughly 79 of those, which we'll do in the May Open Consultations which are going to be held in Paris on the 19-21 of May. There's also the call for open forums which we invite organizations and countries who have -- who want to showcase their Internet governance activities offered up here to apply for an open forum which is one and a half hour slot during the Istanbul IGF. Thank you. That's it. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Chengetai. The 210 workshops, you are going to kill me. [ Laughter ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: And I think most of the MAG members. I'm a bit worried. Okay. So after this briefing, I think can we go to the discussion of our -- Just one procedural remark. I would like to ask each delegation to designate one member to take the floor during a session. So Jafar, you can take the floor, of course, but so what I mean during a session, if you have the morning session, just one member. Okay. Jafar, go ahead. >>JAFAR BARMAKI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately it's not possible with our delegation because there are some issues that I have to cover and some by Mr. Arasteh. The point I wanted to raise is that since we heard from the latest developments on the matter, on the subject matter we are going to discuss in our working group, we will be very happy to hear from the -- also what has happened in the U.N. General Assembly with -- to -- assisted by the -- I mean, on the issue that I finish in Tunis and (indiscernible) ambassadors. That will be very useful if we hear the latest developments on that (indiscernible). Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. That's a very good point. It's a very important point as well. I wonder if someone can brief us about it because I have no firsthand information. My information is that negotiations are still going on, consultations are still going on. What I read as the last document, there was a proposal to have a two-day meeting during the General Assembly, but if someone has more accurate information, the secretariat might brief us about it, if you have some more information. I -- personally, I don't have more information about that. >>ANNE MIROUX: No. Definitely we don't have more detailed information than the one that you just mentioned. We have been in contact with the ambassador of Tunisia to the United Nations in New York as well as to the ambassador of Finland, and just for your information, the ambassador of Tunisia to the U.N. in New York is expected, actually, to participate in the CSTD, and it's a special day of the CSTD devoted to the WSIS follow-up. That is on the 14th of May. He will either come to Geneva for the CSTD or we will have a video session with him. But as of now, I think the only thing that we can say is that negotiations are still going on. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Anne. Well, I really appreciate your question because it's very, very important in the whole process and the way we are going to contribute to the process itself. So after that, we can go to the substantive part. You agree to that, that we go according to the points I have put out in the agenda. So what I suggest now is to start discussing proposals in Topic D. That is, developing countries, Questions 10 and 15, which we haven't discussed up to now. And you have the document, and without further ado, I would like to ask the proponent of the recommendations to give us short introductory remarks about the recommendations. So the first one is Japan. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the colleagues. I'd like to make a brief explanation about our proposal. To implement enhanced cooperation and to make developing countries can play an important role in the Internet-related public policy issues, Japan considers that the international cooperation such as capacity-building, technical cooperation, best practice sharing is necessary in the field of developing ICT infrastructure, promoting ICT utilization and the application and ensuring a stable and secure functioning of the Internet. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Japan. In the meantime, I realized that India asked for the floor before your intervention. Please, India. I'm absolutely sorry. You are too close to me. >>INDIA: No. Thank you very much, Chair. I think I would not like to interrupt the floor at this point in time since you opened discussion on Group D, but at some stage, Mr. Chair, we need to reflect on the overall outcome that we are looking of this fourth session, fourth meeting of this working group, because we have some comments to make on that procedure. At some stage during the course of this morning session, if you will give us an opportunity to speak on that, because eventually that would be critical in moving forward and coming up with recommendation, stroke opinions, stroke report. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Getting back to Japan, so I open the floor for discussion about the proposal from Japan. Iran? >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: thank you, Chairman. I have a general proposal with respect to the output of this meeting to the CSTD or to whatever you go. First of all, the number of recommendations should be minimum necessary. Try to avoid having multiple recommendations either overlapping or not necessary. So make it minimum necessary. That is number one. Number two, recommendations should be coherent and relevant to the subject and should avoid having nice empty words. "Sustainable," "cooperation," "collaboration," "enhancement," all of these things are something that's very nice but very difficult to understand. Thirdly, it must be implementable, workable, and practical. Something which is not implementable is not possible to say. To give one example, I go to the introductory part of Recommendation 1: "Endeavor to implement international cooperation." Why we endeavor? Why we do not go to the international cooperation? We just endeavor to have international -- implementing international cooperation? How we implement international cooperation? Is the subject of international cooperation implementation a subject of the enhanced cooperation? And then talking of the formulating ICT market, developing ICT infrastructure, we are not talking about ICT market here. This is not our subject. It is elsewhere. "To achieve sustainable development through the Internet." This is also not Internet governance. So there are so many things in this recommendation by our distinguished colleagues which might be good but not relevant to these subjects and not appropriate and would not take us anywhere. This is some combination of words, each of which might have a meaning. Putting them together does not have any meaning at all. And moreover, it is not relevant to the subject. So this is the situation. And as I mentioned, anything we say, we should have the implementation. We come later on to say something like "bottom-up process." We have to -- how we do the bottom-up process. I will give one example, not to go to the Japanese proposal, but there is no way how to implement all of these things. So I think that it is -- sometimes we will not be (indiscernible) at all. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Saudi Arabia? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, the role of developing countries is, in fact, one of the public policy issues which is reflected in our recommendation under Section B. I mean, we should look and draft a recommendation under this group how we enable developing countries, I mean, to focus on the development of international public policy issues, how we can write a recommendation that will fully implement enhanced cooperation that will enable developing countries to work together with others in implementing enhanced cooperation. By reading this and comparing this to 69, I do not know how we will fully implement 69 with this recommendation. Here we speak about market, ICT infrastructure, where the essence of 69 is enabling government on equal footing to develop international public policy issues regarding Internet. I don't see this recommendation as taking us further steps to achieve 69. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Sweden? >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. We would like to express our support for this recommendation. We think it sends an important message, an important signal, about something that could be -- some things that we could do that could be helpful for developing countries to build capacity, so we support this recommendation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Let me see if I could offer a -- what I hope might be a friendly amendment but maintain the spirit of the -- and the purpose of this recommendation. I think that recognizing that we may have different views about how to implement enhanced cooperation, still I think everyone in the room has devoted a lot of time to supporting the idea that our recommendations should advance the availability of the Internet and the capacity-building to strengthen the participation of developing countries. So I might propose replacing the words "formulating the ICT market" with "in areas" -- and just saying, instead, "in areas such as social and economic growth and development," which does not make a reference to markets but does make a reference to the importance of the growth of economic opportunity. In particular, in developing countries. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Thank you, Chair. I do agree with the word "endeavor." I think it is sufficient to say "implement." So that is something. I do think, however, that this does contribute to the implementation of 69 in the context of 67 through 72, the broader context of 69, which we have spoken of and emphasized frequently in here. So I think that this is actually a very useful recommendation and I do believe that the terms within it are, indeed, understood within the context of Internet governance. We certainly could get into philosophical linguistic detail of exactly how one would define "bottom-up," and we probably have as many definitions of "bottom-up" as we have of "democracy" in the room. So therefore, I would say that this is an understandable statement, and within the context of 67 through 72, it does -- and 69 within that context -- it does indeed enhance cooperation of states among all stakeholders. So I would very much support this statement. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Russia. >>RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you. Actually, I don't understand the -- the sequences of the -- this recommendation. It looks like that developing countries should first make their capacity-building to agree to the infrastructure, promote, utilize, make the secure function of Internet, and only then we'll be able to come up with Internet-related public policy issues. I do not understand the sequence of that. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Any other -- India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Just to -- we also tend to see a big challenge in -- one is the sequence of ideas that have been put together. Number two, if we are making a recommendation, I think it's a matter -- it's a kind of a statement that you are making. It is not -- doesn't look like as a recommendation. A recommendation would actually, as some colleagues have mentioned earlier, that it is adding value to what is already going on, number two, and there is certain actionable points that comes out of the recommendation. So from both -- from these two tests, I think this particular paragraph, we can work on this, if you -- if you permit us to, but it has too many ideas contained in the same place. I think we have a challenge in accepting it as a recommendation. I have no problem -- we agree with the sentence. The entire paragraph we agree with. But to be presented as a recommendation for global community, particularly in this case member states who would be coming first and then others who -- other stakeholders who want to take up lead from this, I'm afraid that there are challenges. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, India. Very useful. Well, probably my gratitude is going to be expressed if I ask you to move this recommendation -- or this statement into a recommendation phase, and I would like to ask other stakeholders to, during the lunch break, come together and work on it about the sequence, about the implementation of 69, about the implementation of all of this. So I could hear different opinions. I could hear that there is value. So I really encourage you to work on that. So if, Mr. Reddy, you are willing to move it forward a bit, I would be extremely grateful. Of course Japan, I would like to ask you. Iran. Saudi Arabia. Avri, if you are willing to participate. Marilyn. Russia. Please do sit down and make this recommendation. I think we can work on that. So having said that, let's move to the next one. This is a recommendation in draft which has been submitted by a group of stakeholders. Avri, if you can present this. >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly, Mr. Chair. Basically, should I go through the whole group or just per bullet? How would you prefer that this one be done? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can you repeat? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Do you want me to just do it per bullet or do you want me to go through the whole thing? >>CHAIR MAJOR: Go through the whole set. >>AVRI DORIA: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. So this is basically a set where we start out with the recommendation that no new multistakeholder -- multilateral arrangements are required to support enhanced cooperation in developing countries. This builds on the ones that are future. So it encourages the efforts of various existing mechanisms to understand Internet governance and to make public policy in light of and taking into account its multistakeholder nature. Because there are many already existing efforts of all sorts, and what we're saying is to look at these, to look how they apply to Internet governance in its multistakeholder nature and take them forward. We encourage -- it encourages the U.N. and global Internet community to identify mechanisms that can facilitate the collection of financial contributions to support the participation, engagement of stakeholders from developing countries, in the perspective of ensuring that developing countries have equal leadership with developed countries in development of Internet policy globally. One of the things that we certainly have noticed in Internet governance, in multistakeholder, and have even seen it in the multilateral efforts of the past, is that developing countries do not necessarily have the same level of leadership and of ability to participate, and largely that is because of financial reasons. We've seen that often. One of the good things about NETmundial is that it's shown us that the money is out there to do stuff, so we really just need to make a recommendation that that money be applied to developing economies for multistakeholder processes. Encourage governments of developing countries to foster engagement with Internet governance issues at the national and regional levels. Basically, making the point that Internet governance, multistakeholder Internet governance, is not purely an international issue, it is a regional and national issue, and that if we expect Internet governance to be a consistent body, to contribute to an Internet ecosystem, it really needs to occur from the local to the international level. And enable developing countries, including both governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders, to play a more effective role in global Internet governance by developing mechanisms at national and regional levels and by democratization at all levels, including the local -- I mean, including the global level. Excuse me for stumbling while I'm reading my own words. So basically, it's a set of recommendations that, taken individually and together, basically look to strengthen developing countries from the most local to the global for full participation of developing economy stakeholders. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Any comments? India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to give three or four submissions in respect to this recommendation. While I think it is a belief which I think we would like to -- which in our view would like to disabuse of this belief that this multistakeholderism and multi-literalism are -- it's a (indiscernible) game you're talking about. Hence, there are recommendations made often that there's no need for multi-lateral arrangements or mechanisms when we talk about Internet governance. I think in our view, they have respective places. It is primarily because there are a number of international public policy issues relating to Internet which require close and very careful attention of the governments, partly because and largely also, that governments are committing the populations, entire citizenry in their countries, to the use of Internet as a medium for communications, to public policy implementation, and a number of other issues, to the extent that the core assets of a country are now using Internet as a medium and we perhaps would be short-sighted in our approach in this working group if we want to believe that governments have no role and thereby there is no need for any multi-lateral mechanisms or arrangements to look at this very important dimension which in many countries declared it as part of the national security dimension. That's the first submission I want to make. And secondly, while I do agree that largely the problem is the financial aspects, many countries, developing countries, do not have the financial resources to be able to not only commit their own populations, people in the country, but also as a government be able to actively participate in this Internet governance led issues. But I think they cannot be all -- they have their importance. We acknowledge that. And I think for this -- largely this has to be addressed domestically. I don't think international cooperation alone is going to find solutions. So we would like to place them in the respective positions. Thirdly, on one hand we want to encourage countries to have Internet governance at the national and the regional level but when it comes to international level we want to be silent about it. Do we know why we are trying to reach that -- move in that direction? And for the reasons which I mentioned a little while ago. So from that point of view, Mr. Chair, we cannot agree with recommendation number 1, and we are looking -- willing to look at other parts of the recommendation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mr. Reddy. I'm not surprised. So I can hear from your words that there are parts or some points that you can agree on or you think they can be taken into consideration. Avri, you'd like to take the floor? >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one clarification. The recommendation does not say that no multi-lateral arrangements are required. Many multi-lateral arrangements already exist. What we are saying is that no new ones are required. Certainly, you know, we're not advocating the dissolution of current multi-lateral arrangements, of which there are more than I could possibly count. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri, for the clarification. Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, our distinguished colleague Mr. Reddy just said what I mean -- come up to say so recommendation bullet 1 and bullet 2, it is very hard for us to accept. We can work with us to focus on the international effort. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Saudi Arabia. Iran. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. Just to be clear, unfortunately I personally will not be available during the lunch break, I have some medical arrangements. However, maybe now -- recommendation 1, if it is to be redrafted, it should point to what enhanced cooperation for the implementation of public policy issues but not marketing. We don't want to have enhanced cooperation for marketing and the development of the market, development of (indiscernible) and so on and so forth. That is actually line C2 and (indiscernible) is not here. Now comment number 2, I just comment thanks to the writer or author of that, even new multi-lateral arrangement, who could say that is not necessary? Who -- who dare to say that it stop here. No more. No thinking to that nation? What is there is sufficient? Who could say that? What is developing, the day is changing, the time is changing, there might be new arrangements. Who could say that no new multi-lateral arrangement? There might be many others. It is totally irrelevant and inappropriate to claim that whatever is there is perfect. There is no perfection anywhere at all. The only perfect is God, that's all. Now, comment to two issues, encourage governments for national, encourage governments for national -- bullet number 2 and 3 at the end. I think they are towing the monkey to the shoulder of developing countries. We came like many others to enhanced cooperation for the public policy issue. They say no, no, no, nothing is required. Do it yourself. You have problem with your national level, go and try do that and -- that is towing the monkey to the shoulder of others. This is also not the purpose of them. Then there are many other things unclear. Encourage the effort of various interesting mechanisms to understand. Who is going to tell these people that how this mechanism is working, saying that you don't understand it and we want to make it understandable to you, who has that knowledge to make it understandable to the existing mechanism how the Internet governance is working and what is Internet governance? What is Internet governance? I don't know. ICANN governance? IANA governance? What is this governance? It's nothing. All of these things are worth -- and to encourage you -- we want to encourage you and to give financial support to the developing countries. There might be other areas to do that. There might be other entities to do that. So we are totally deflecting and departing from the main point. I am very sorry, this is my view. Going to the IGF arrangement, widening and widening and widening to get nowhere. In order to make people totally lost. Open the issue as much as possible then they will be totally lost in the middle of nowhere. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. I hope you can make it in the afternoon, if I'm mistaken. Avri, you want to answer? No. Okay. Phil. Parminder, I didn't forget about you. Sorry. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Good morning. I think -- listening to the various interventions, I think there are some merits in the recommendations that have been submitted. I understand that the wording may not be necessarily correct, but I think the general thrust and overall intent of the recommendations, as presented in this grouping of five bullet points, are ones that are worthy of further consideration and merit. I think the general thrust of trying to minimize the activities that we have to undertake in this area of what Internet governance is going forward, and I take note of Mr. Arasteh's note about what is Internet governance. I mean, I think that's a reasonable question going forward and perhaps not one you would want to enter into a debate, but I think it's right and proper that we look at trying to minimize the overheads that we would all face in trying to take forward some activity to assist developing countries in participating in, to the greatest extent possible, the role that we might see for enhanced cooperation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair, and welcome all of you back to Geneva. I think we are now at the core of the issues which we need to sort out and again, going back to the observations which were made earlier, I think first we need to understand or accept or debate whether we need a mechanism for dealing with public policy issues around the Internet at the global level. That's the purpose. Multi-lateral or not, multistakeholder plus multi-lateral, et cetera, should come later. The first is the recognition whether there are gaps in public policy -- addressing public policy at the global level. And we need some policies, that's the mandate. In that regard, it would surprise me that essentially pretty strong preconceived notion or statement that no arrangement is needed, no arrangement is made at the global level. If you look at line 5, it says develop new mechanisms for Internet governance at national and regional levels. I miss the logic because if one would look at it, national level is much more natural in terms of all kind of policymaking, ministries, departments, and to say that no, you need something out there which develops some new mechanisms but not at the global level seems to be making the statement, justification behind which I'm not really clear. But it's good to come up with it. Also when I see representatives for Internet Governance Forum itself -- and we did agree that Internet governance is the government set of public policies and that's why you needed a platform to discuss them. We did not say that it is being discussed at WHO, intellectual property at WIPO or et cetera, so we don't need a convergent forum for discussion. We needed a convergent forum and we are already in (indiscernible) support. IGF -- but when we talk about addressing the same set of public policy issues we need a mechanism, it is not clear and I think to now go ahead, if we can add in point 5 before national and regional level at global national and regional level, we at least are symmetric in what we're trying to say and then see what we can do about the rest of the recommendation. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So anyone else? Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes, thank you. First of all, to respond to one of the things I neglected to respond to before. Indeed Iran is correct. To presume such bravery as to say that nothing is ever necessary for the rest of time is indeed overly presumptuous of me. And indeed it would be reasonable to say that the statement that we're trying to make is that no new multi-lateral arrangements are required at this time. And so what we're saying is the recommendation is that we do not come out with a recommendation to create a new multi-lateral mechanism. What this excludes here -- and I think Parminder pointed that out -- is it says nothing about the absence of whether there's a need to create new multistakeholder mechanisms. I would argue -- and I'd have to talk to the others there -- that indeed what we're trying to say is whether it's WIPO, whether it's World Health Organization, that we have to interface with those organizations as opposed to creating new organization mechanisms, multi-lateral organizations, or even multistakeholder mechanisms at this time to do that. The absence has been seen at a regional level. It's too -- too -- so the set of recommendations does not want to bar new multistakeholder mechanisms, that's the gap analysis that's being done. But it also is not recommending those at this time. What it's saying is no new multi-lateral of governments only are needed for enhanced cooperation at this time is the statement that the first bullet is making. It is not precluding that the gap analysis and after work has been done with existing mechanisms one discovers that yes, a new multistakeholder mechanism is required, that it's not making that pre-determination. It's just saying it's not recommending it at this time. I hope that clarified it somewhat. >>CHAIR MAJOR: It's perfectly clarified to me. However, I think our recommendations should be in the way that what we should do, not what we should not do. So it should be proactive. I think, as you mentioned, you ought to go back to your group and discuss it with them and probably you'd like to take into account all of the remarks you've received from other members and I would like to encourage you to do that and come back to discussing this point again. Personally, I think there are merits. There are variable parts which can be, at some point, turned into recommendations. Probably needs further discussion. I have a feeling that Richard, you wanted to take the floor now? But this is the point I would like to give the opportunity to observers, in case they have observations. In case no? Yes. >> Mr. Chairman, my point is following one. Sorry, this is my first meeting so maybe I'm a bit rough, but we should all be aware that when we have these kind of stakeholder forums it's much more forums is a place to make decisions so we should not be expected to have the correct answers today because the agenda has already has been done, the agenda has already been set. The second thing, we all know that consensus is not -- it is about the whole process. Sometimes consensus is not the best way to take decision and sometimes consensus takes time. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Well, I can see no other observers. Oh, yeah. Yes, Nigel. >>NIGEL HICKSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you and good morning to fellow delegates. Thank you for the opportunity to take part in this meeting. On this particular -- on this particular approach I think it is, as I think has been said, an opportunity to have a fundamental discussion. No doubt we might have had it before. But I think if we're going to move forward with some of these recommendations we just need to discuss the application of public policy and how it's derived. And I think we should take note of the fact that public policy is being derived in a number of different fora, and as the proposer of this recommendation has recognized, some of those fora are of course multi-lateral, some of them are multistakeholder, and I think we need to recognize that in taking forward further discussions on these public policy issues that we need to involve as many stakeholders to bring wisdom to those discussions as possible. So I think there is indeed merit in discussing this and trying to agree to something that's acceptable to all parties as important. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Nigel. Anja. >>ANJA KOVACS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I'm here from the Internet Democracy Project in India. I wanted to comment that I think the distinguished delegate from Iran saying that the reference to national and regional levels seem to kind of displace responsibility to developing countries for taking this forward rather than resolving it at the global level. And I think we look at that slightly differently in the sense that if you look for example in the wake of the Snowden revelations the U.S. government has a lot of critics for undermining trust in Internet governance. And I think whether governments make decisions unilaterally or in a multi-lateral process together. And if people are to have trust in those decisions, it is really important -- and I think the NETmundial also again made that clear -- that even multi-lateral processes are informed by multistakeholder processes and that there is an opportunity for wider debate around the decisions that ultimately will be made by governments. So I wouldn't read this as trying to displace that responsibility but as a recognition of the fact that it is important that this concept is developed in all countries so that decisions both multi-lateral or multistakeholder can benefit from that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Personally I think that, as I mentioned, that there's merit in the recommendations. We can work on these recommendations further with the hope of coming to some kind of agreement. As a first of my -- I recommend to you, Avri, to get together with the other proposed proponents and later on come back to us and brief us about the results and carry on with the discussion. Now, we are on time. So I recommend to have the -- India, if you want to make your statement now, you can do it or you feel like doing it after the coffee break? After coffee break? Okay. So let's have our 15-minute coffee break now. And when I say 15, I mean it. [ Break ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think we had some technical problems, but they have been sorted out. I hope you had a good coffee, good conversations, and you are fresh to start. I have raised a question about starting earlier. Is it agreeable that we start at 9:00, with the notion that we are going to have the coffee break a bit earlier than which is put down in the agenda? Yes, Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it's okay to start at 9:00, but with the understanding that the two hours lunch break will be free for lunch. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Yeah. I completely support this proposal. The two-hour lunch break is an absolute "must." Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Yeah. Happy to support that, Chair, and willing to sit down with my Saudi colleagues and work through lunch to assist them in any discussions we might have. >>CHAIR MAJOR: All right. Okay. Thank you. So that is the starting earlier in the morning. As to how we are going to finish in the evening is a different question, and it will -- we shall see what's going to happen this afternoon and we shall talk about it. Okay. So before the break, we discussed the -- a list of -- or a group of recommendations submitted by Avri. Let me turn to Avri and ask her if she managed to get in touch with the other proponents. >>AVRI DORIA: Briefly, but we have not had a chance to rework. We're going to sit down over the lunch, eat, and talk words. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Okay. Right. Okay. So you will come back to us in the afternoon. >>AVRI DORIA: Yes. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So I propose to move forward. So if I'm not mistaken, we have taken some initiatives to work over the lunch. There's the Japanese proposal, and I asked Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, Japan naturally, to sit down, and those who are interested -- I think Marilyn was interested too -- to work on some text which is acceptable to all of us and which is implementable, which is not a negligible aspect. Okay. And I had the answer from Avri that she's going to come back after consultation and probably we should take on the discussion on these issues. Now, we have a draft recommendations from -- recommendations from Brazil, Mexico, Sweden, and U.K. Per, can I ask you to introduce the recommendations? >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. If my colleagues from Mexico and Brazil and U.K. so allow me -- and I can't see them in the room so I guess I'll just go ahead, then -- so I think these are two recommendations that we put forward after discussions in our group during the last meeting or even maybe before that, and -- well, I think they are fairly straightforward. If you look at the first one, we are aware of that there are challenges for stakeholders, especially from developing countries, to participate in many of the discussions that are taking place. I think we could just look in the room here today and we will see that. And that has been pointed out before. So I think this recommendation sends a message about that and also gives some indications about what we can do to try to address that. And the second recommendation is also an attempt to acknowledge some of the challenges that do exist in terms of especially maybe access in developing countries, and that's a big, big challenge, of course, and gives, again, some direction of what could possibly be a way forward to try to mitigate such challenges. I think I'll stop there, Chairman. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. I open the floor for discussion. U.S.? >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all colleagues. The United States strongly supports both of these recommendations. We would seek a bit of clarification on the term "members" in this context. Mr. Chairman, through you, perhaps we could get a better understanding of that, but otherwise, we think the text and the sentiment behind both sentiments [sic] are very strong and we are supporters. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, U.S. That was one of my concerns. Per, can you clarify what do you mean by "members"? >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. I think we had such a discussion also during the last meeting and I think we have also had this discussion internally and we acknowledge that it's not necessarily the best word to use here. I think the original intent was that these recommendations were put forward to the CSTD, and then for that reason we were elaborating with the word "members." But I think this is broader than just the recommendations to the CSTD. It's recommendations to the whole community. So maybe "stakeholders" would be a better word or -- well, I would be very interested in hearing what other colleagues have to say about that. I think it's an interesting -- when we look through all the recommendations at a later stage, that we agree on how we can -- it's interesting to see how we can streamline them, and this is one of those, I think, cross-cutting issues that we have: To whom do we address these recommendations. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Definitely your observation about the recommendations, they are not addressing the CSTD members. That's clear. So we are addressing a broader community, and we have been mandated by the U.N. General Assembly. Iran? >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Per, for presenting these two recommendations and the countries involved in preparing the recommendations. These two paragraphs, in fact. Mr. Chairman, I share the same, let's say, concern on the "members" with the previous speaker, but I have some other comments on these two paragraphs and seeking point of clarifications, Mr. Chairman. For example, in the first paragraph, what are "all stakeholders" referring to here? Because I see that there are some difference between "stakeholders" in the first paragraph and in the second paragraph. Maybe the second paragraph, "all the stakeholders" means the people, not stakeholders. Therefore, there should be some differences between these two "stakeholders" used in these paragraphs. The other one, what are "the existing global Internet governance"? That, we think -- if it's only fora which just discussing, that's something else than what we are looking for, which are mechanisms to deal with the Internet governance. The other matter, we're concerned about just limiting the challenges developing countries are facing to only funding mechanisms and remote participation, because -- and the problem with remote participation is the infrastructure, it's not just the participation. Therefore, those infrastructures should be in place to have the remote participations, and therefore, limiting to these two items, I think -- and leaving out the other challenges which developing countries are facing needs to be dealt with here in this paragraph. On the second paragraph, Mr. Chairman, I have concerns on using "fair and consistent." What is "fair and consistent"? Because "fair" has a relative meaning and everyone can interpret in its own way. Therefore, I am looking to see -- to hear the -- the specifications of the proponents of these two paragraphs on the points I raised. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Iran. Saudi Arabia? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, including the comments that was said by previous speaker, if we will strengthen the participation of all stakeholders, is it equally or within their respective roles? This is a point for -- I mean, a question for us. "Existing global Internet governance." Doing what? Developing international policy issues? There is no existing. So we need to be specific in which area we need to strengthen participation. The second recommendation, "domestic framework" is okay, but we need to put emphasis on "international framework," as enhanced cooperation meant to be an international (indiscernible) with respect to public policy issues. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I can hear from the remarks that there's room for improvement, but to me the message is that we can work on that. Ellen? >>ELLEN BLACKLER: Good morning. I'm Ellen Blackler, with the Walt Disney Company, one of the business representatives on the panel. I wanted to support the sentiment here and the recommendation particularly on the remote participation. I think there's no question that where we have had remote participation, the -- we have had increased participation and more diverse participation and better outcomes. So notwithstanding the challenges that that presents, particularly in areas of our good infrastructure, I think it's important that we have a recommendation that we do a better job with that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ellen. I have been approached by some remote participants that I should increase the volume of my voice, which is also an obstacle to participate actively in this meeting, so I try to do my best and I'm really sorry I'm not being too loud. Victoria? >>MEXICO: Thank you, Chair. Just to -- to thank you for your remark and sharing with us the feeling of the group regarding the improvements that we can have in these recommendations, and sorry if I take the floor before consulting with my fellow co-proponents, but Mexico is willing to work with the -- with some of the issues that were already stated by some colleagues. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Excellent. That's the type of intervention I am looking forward to. So as we mentioned, we are going to have this two-hour lunch break. Probably a short part will be dedicated to take some food and the other part will be dedicated to work on the recommendations, and I encourage those who would like to work on that -- in particular, eventually Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico, Sweden, Brazil, and all others who are interested -- to -- do not miss this excellent opportunity to work on this recommendation. Before we go to the next one, let me take the opportunity to ask India for the general comments you wanted to make. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I didn't want to interrupt the process, but since you asked us to take the floor, I want to touch on two aspects of our work. One is the procedural and the other is the substantive dimensions. In terms of procedure, Mr. Chair, one is, we do have a lot of contributions made by members of the working group, as well as other part- -- observers and various other participants. While we do respect their views and however divergent they are, given the vast range of opinions that we are having to attend, it is important that the recommendation that we want to make try and capture, as much as possible, the diversity. And while we want to go through these proposals and agree on some, at the same time -- like for example, the procedure that we are following is we agree on some paragraphs and move forward, but I think we have to recognize also the fact that wherever there is no agreement the text is being taken out, naturally, but the challenge is it has to be seen at the end of the entire process in its entirety. I mean, we have this saying in the U.N. system that when we agree on some paragraphs, we say agreed ad referendum, with the intention to come back and see in its entirety when everyone agrees on the overall text, then we take that as an agreement of the group which is working on it. So I think that principle is important from India's perspective, and I'm sure many of the colleagues who have been working in the U.N. systems, this is followed and I think it provided a good result. Sometimes it's a little painful but that's how it is. That's number one. So from that perspective, I would -- it would be useful to keep this -- at least we would like this point to be reached -- I mean, it would be made time and again if required, but I think this point is important from our delegation's perspective. Second, which I wish to also make is, you had earlier in the initial intervention -- initial introduction very kindly agreed that we would also look at the possibility of capturing the broad opinions, and we have said it in -- even in the previous sessions of the working group that the -- given the enormity of the challenges that we have in terms of bringing an agreement on fairly important, as the delegations perceive, it is -- we have to recognize that it will be difficult to bridge those gaps on some of the core issues because the discussions are not taking place only here but outside this working group, both within the U.N. system as well as further beyond. So if you can give this recognition, then we as a working group perhaps could be able to provide the diversity of that opinion presented as models, and without prejudice to the opinion that is contained in other places and on a voluntary basis, if the groups within the room -- if the opinions can be consolidated and taken as part of the report, not as an annex to the report, because the annexes tend to not sometimes make the same impact as much as you have it in the body of the text. Such an approach would help us to arrive at the recommendations that we were looking at. That means we will have clearly defined models with broadly the -- within the working group there seem to be maybe two models, maybe three, and third, thereafter, we have some commonly agreed recommendations which are to be read in conjunction with whichever one -- models that has been agreed to be included. And thereafter, third point I also want to make is that this is a very dynamic process that we are engaged in. I think it will be our endeavor to arrive at a decision on some of these recommendations, but I think there are challenges which you yourself have pointed out that how do this working group take the benefit of developments outside. As I said, they need not be presented as submissions but they can be -- each member in the group can bring those into the sort of discussion platform and we are able to arrive at some more concrete recommendations. So at the end of it, Chair, we are in your safe hands. We know that you will steer us well and through the end, but we would encourage you to take these views on board as you go along. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mr. Reddy. I'm not in disagreement with you. So reflecting on your first remark, naturally we shall follow the U.N. good practice. As for the opinions, it's up to the group how to include, because we did agree that we -- in case -- in case of difference of opinions -- and I couldn't hear any differences. Yeah? Anyway, so in case of differences of opinions, probably this will be reflected. Whether it will be in the body of the report or if it is annexed probably is up to the group to decide. I have no preference. It can be anywhere. As to where to put it, at the beginning, at the end, I have no preference either. And, well, I can see no problem with this remark. And probably as for the -- what I call a moving target, in view of the -- all of the processes going on and all of the developments, probably this is a good way to bring into this discussion the experiences on personal interventions. We are not going to make any judgment about other processes, naturally, but we shall learn. And we -- I am not afraid of learning from other processes, and probably I assume that you are not either. So now let's face it. We are talking about something which is -- which has been established 10 years ago. The Internet itself has been established 20 years ago. The Internet -- I don't know where to start, from TCP/IP protocol, whatever, but we are not talking about something which has been around for centuries. So we are -- we are in a learning curve ourselves, and to learn from a process which has been going on for 20, 25 years is not a big deal in terms of history. So there's nothing wrong about learning from other processes and other experiences. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. Just a brief comment on the proposal made by India just now. I think we spent also considerable time discussing this issue at the last meeting, and it is our opinion that we should first and foremost focus on our mandate, and our mandate is to produce recommendations. And the working method by which we do so is by consensus in this group. So although we thank the Indian delegation for their remarks and contribution, we think that already now starting to mentally focus on -- on drafting divergent models or statements on how different groupings within this working group -- what kind of -- what would be the ideal, desired results for the different like-minded groupings would take us away from our main objective here and it could also be confusing for the reader if we were to include this divergent sort of models or views in the report. We think that if there is -- if it's necessary to at all state different grouping positions regarding some of the issues that we are not able to reach consensus upon, it would be easier to do so in an annex. But we are not even convinced that we need such an annex or that we need such an annex or that we need such a statement at all. But if -- if it's the sentiment of the group that such statements are needed, we would have a preference for doing so in the annex. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I believe it's -- the most important point for me is to take up all the valuable information or valuable contributions we have, even though we mightn't have agreed to some of them or some part of the working group didn't agree to them. But this information eventually at some later stage or later time -- and I'm talking about two, five or whatever number of years -- can be revisited and to see what we have been doing here, to have a document, a documentation what has been going on. So it's naturally up to you to decide if it's -- it is desirable to have this kind of opinions or processes, it's up to you in case you decide that yes, we should have that but this will be -- I agree, it should be at a later stage that we have already at least gone through all the recommendations, all the draft recommendations, and we have some kind of feeling where we are and what we have achieved. Because I'm sure that we should achieve some positive results and we should end on positive results. So I think I would like to ask Saudi Arabia if you want to comment on that, and anyway, I want to turn to you because next -- you are on the next recommendation. So please, go ahead. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously we strongly support the proposal made by India. We believe that the recommendation of the working group should be consistent, coherent, and they should follow a rational, analytic manner. The Saudi proposal, including this proposal and the section 3, are both based on -- if we take A, B, C, D, and E, you will see there is a rational analytics behind drafting this proposal. So separating them will be misleading really when they read the full report or the full recommendation. So again, we support the Indian proposal. And based on the recommendation, our view is enabling the recommendation to the developing countries. We see that there is a need for a platform for all member states can come on equal footing to development of an ISOC policy. This platform would take care of capacity building, education or technical support. Financial support, as we know in the U.N. system, are taken care through these international body platforms. So the whole support we provide to developing countries by establishing such mechanisms. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Well, right now I think we have taken note of the Indian proposal and we have taken note of the different opinions, and I suggest we proceed with the discussion of the Saudi proposal draft recommendations. Anyone -- any comments on that? India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you very much, Chair. This is a proposal I think we fully endorse for reasons which I had explained in our intervention and also in the IGF meeting also. There are, I think, two critical elements which are one, global Internet governance to be on equal footing and number two, with regard to the importance of capacity building as well as financial dimensions. So from that point of view, this -- obviously we will have to put it in words in terms of having to make it as a recommendation. At this point in time, it's an idea which we endorse fully. Obviously we'll have to see how it can shape as a good recommendation. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Mr. Reddy. It seems to me that you are trying to accumulate as much work as you can for your lunch break. ( Laughter ) No. Joking. Mexico. >>MEXICO: Thank you, Chair. I can see this proposal also -- this proposal has some reflection of the previous one. I can see lots of elements that the previous proposals we have been discussing are (indiscernible). And naturally the proposal that follows this, the one by Mexico, and I can see many of the elements that we have in these three elements on the previous one. Just one question regarding the first recommendation, providing a platform. My colleague already gave us a brief explanation, but it wasn't quite clear to me. Sorry, I was not following, and probably we can work instead of having three or four different paragraphs and three or four different processes between delegates, we can have only one and make a merge of all the recommendations because I see many -- it's just an echo of the previous one. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Victoria. Did I get you right, that you are suggesting to have a kind of group which would discuss the previous proposals and this proposal and try to come out with some kind of common -- I'm all for it. Anything which is a positive approach, I'm all for it. Marilyn and then Iran. >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. I will support Mexico's suggestion that the recommendations which are about capacity building and a focus on strengthening participation of developing countries come together, and I would like to join that group and discuss the practicalities of how to advance a recommendation -- maybe more than one in the end, but at least one -- that can enjoy broad support. I do just have a question for clarification. My exposure in the past to seeing how recommendations that require U.N. funding are treated in the U.N. budget has -- would perhaps cause caution to me to think that U.N. funding is going to be easily available. So perhaps the group can also take up a discussion about the practicalities of funding. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Marilyn. This is indeed a very significant aspect, funding. And we know it from experience and in particular from this working group, which is almost self-funded. Iran. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief since we are going to convene in a small group on this paragraph and the others. Just I wanted to mention that I agree with the previous speakers that there are some points that shares in this and the other -- in this paragraph proposed by Saudi Arabia and the others. But the difference is that here we have a very clear separate -- three separate items that -- which are very important for the developing countries to focus on. Therefore, these paragraphs could -- I mean, the very basis for the group to work on that, and I think that there are maybe some items that is out of that which I would like to stress and which is also beside technical support, also be the developing countries technological support. That one is out that we would like to insert in the -- the group discussion. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. From the interventions up to now I could hear positive attitudes toward this proposal and probably I can -- I could also hear that there are commonalities with the previous proposal. I will give you the floor, Saudi Arabia. And I heard the suggestion to have a kind of just one group to work on that, to merge different proposals. Is it agreeable to the proponents? Saudi Arabia, I'm asking you. And Iran, you'd like to participate in that as well. I'm just happy to hear that. Saudi Arabia, would you like to comment? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments goes to the financial support. I'm sure that developing countries, if there is a clear mechanisms that will enable them, they will be the first to fund such funds. They would be the first to send money so they would be enabled on equal footing with other member states to perform their agreed role in the Tunis Agenda. So funding is not an issue. Once we have a clear picture everyone will come and I mean contribute wisely, financially to this mechanisms where everyone would perform their role as the Tunis Agenda. Regarding the merging all -- I mean, recommendation and another section, we agree but keeping the essence of our recommendation to be focused on international equal footing. I mean, we can work together on this in these three days. Thank you so much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Russia. >>RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Actually I would like to say that we agree with the main logic of this recommendation and we see that the equal participation of developing countries in this process is really the issue and we also would like to take part in the group. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Russia. Anyone on this issue? U.S.? >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States would agree that individual bullets within this paragraph have some good ideas as far as capacity building and encouraging greater participation in international Internet governance of developing countries. However, just to take a larger perspective on the overall proposal that these boards are contained in, the U.S. is not at all supportive of the idea of creating a new U.N. body on this matter. People have raised funding issues. That is one concern. We also believe that a new U.N. body would completely go against the multistakeholder model of Internet governance which the entire WSIS is supportive of and the U.S. in particular are supportive of and just like to remind everyone that paragraph 106 of the Tunis Agenda mentions that implementation of the WSIS outcomes should not require the creation of any new Internet operational bodies. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, U.S. Let me ask you, would you like to participate in this smaller drafting group? I can see you're nodding. Okay. Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. Just to indicate our interest in participating in this group as well and then that it's possible to merge different recommendations and elements in different recommendations, we see value in that. And regarding this specific recommendation from Saudi Arabia, we agree with Mexico that there are some similarities with the previous one that we just discussed and there are some good elements. However, along the lines of what was just said by the delegate from the United States, we do also have difficulties with the idea of a new -- a new platform or a new mechanism for enhanced cooperation. But we are willing to discuss this further in the small group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Sweden. Saudi Arabia and then Japan. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are willing to listen very carefully, especially the section on the Internet governance. I would love to draw their attention to paragraph 60 that the current mechanisms are not adequately addressing international public policy issues. Paragraph 61 this process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanism, so this is possible. The resolution of (indiscernible) was very clear, to fully implement enhanced cooperation as contained in the Tunis Agenda. So we can't write a recommendation on creating a new organization. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Japan. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Japan also has difficulty to accept to setting a new -- a new mechanism, but the rest of the proposal, including capacity building and financial support, we would like to support. And I think that the other Japanese proposal also included capacity building. So I think we -- we can cooperate with each other to make a recommendation. So I would like to support the Mexico idea. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I have heard all of the opinions. I can sense some convergence. I can still feel some divergence, so I would like to encourage you to use your lunchtime in a very efficient manner and come back after lunch break with a kind of joint recommendation which is implementable. And for me this is the keywords, "implementable." Is there any member who would like to take the floor on this issue? If not, I give the floor to observer. Richard. >>RICHARD HILL: Yes, Chairman. I just once again would like to draw attention to the elephant in the room which the coded language is carefully avoiding. As far as I know, the only area where in fact there is a lack of equal footing among governments with respect to what may or may not be public policy issues is the supervision of the Internet domain names and addresses. But I think it's important to stress that the NTIA, the United States has now announced a (indiscernible) by which they may pull out of that. And if they pull out of that, then that particular equal footing problem would hopefully be resolved? So I think it's important to keep that in mind when going forward, that historically this language came from that and that problem may go away depending on what the U.S. does later on. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Richard, for reminding us of this very important aspect and probably all of us are aware of that. It's an ongoing process. It's outside the mandate of this group, and naturally we follow with interest and some of us follow it actively, the whole process within other fora. But for the time being we try and concentrate on the issues we have put forward ourselves or we have received as contributions. Nigel. >>NIGEL HICKSON: Yes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. It's good of you to call observers. I mean, clearly the whole discussion on the new process and new mechanism, whatever, is something that's -- that is live. All I wanted to note is that in the -- in the ICANN context, the equal footing of governance is pursued through the Government Advisory Committee where all governments have a role to play in developing policy in terms of the Government Advisory Committee. And they do participate on equal footing in that context. On the point that Richard made in terms of the NTIA announcement -- and of course I think you mentioned that you would perhaps invite the U.S. government to make a comment on that -- all that I would say is that the responsibility of ICANN is to pursue a consultation, a dialogue on the effect of the announcement. That, we are doing. There is an ongoing dialogue taking place that people can contribute to on line. But of course there will also be discussions in other fora going forward, including the Internet Governance Forum. I know it's not germane to this group, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Nigel. Well, as I said earlier, we are all aware of these this events which have taken place, but probably we have to concentrate on our work. Parminder? >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. I know that we are not at that granular level to talk about oversight of critical Internet resources and their mechanisms because our disagreements right now float at a much higher level and we need to cross those levels before we come to the details, but I just wanted to make my observation or express my opinion on whether what is happening in terms of what Richard pointed out, too, is a part of our mandate or not. And it's my understanding that oversight of critical Internet resources was always supposed to be a part of enhanced cooperation rubric and debate, and the Tunis Agenda is very clear that enhanced cooperation includes development of public policy principles related to critical Internet resources and those public policy principles are relevant only to the extent that they can actually be inputted into the critical Internet resource management system and that inputting structure, mechanism, or whatever you call it, therefore, is a part of enhanced cooperation and discussions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Thank you, Parminder. Saudi Arabia? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm sorry to take the floor again. Well, we know that the Internet management encompasses both (indiscernible) public policy issues, so the recent announcement dealing with the technical part we look here at the entire (indiscernible), what the global Internet governance can enable everyone. As I'm taking the floor, if we can before the break specify how many, I mean, either groups would like to work together, so we can -- we are a small delegation -- so we can cover the net between each other. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So this is one of the most relevant questions about the number of groups, so I -- let me turn to the secretariat to take note of the groups we propose to form. In my understanding, we are talking about two groups. One of them is going to deal with the proposal of Japan, and the -- later we merge two groups. A proposal -- a joint proposal from Mexico, Sweden, Brazil, U.K., on one hand, and I believe Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia's proposals on the other hand. And if I -- did I get you right that you wanted to merge relevant elements of these proposals? So that is my understanding, that there will be two groups during lunch break. So if I were you, I would take a half an hour lunch break and 45 minutes for one group and 45 minutes for the other group. But it's up to you. Oh, and we are still waiting for Avri's consultations with her group, so we are looking forward to have a very nice lunch break. Probably in the remaining five minutes, I think we still have one observer who wanted to take the floor? Yeah? >>GEORGES RADJOU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. As I understood the problem of Internet, for me I see -- my vision is about the fact that we may look for -- we may look to know who owns Internet, because at the moment I feel there is -- there are two trains in the room. The train which is -- which is -- which is thinking Internet for the consumers, which are the people, who are the civil societies, and on the other side, you have people who think that Internet should be the game of the states, and that's -- what's governance? One speaker said that governance is not a matter of money because they have the money, but if I compare with something I know better than Internet, which is water, water -- country -- some countries have a bunch of water so you may say that because they have a lot of water and because water is in all process of human beings, those countries should be developed. In fact, they are not. And countries who don't have water are very developed today, just because of better governance. So money is important, but be- -- beyond money, it's governance which is paramount. Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Just a last word to you. Can you introduce yourself? >>GEORGES RADJOU: Oh, yeah. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah. Civil society. This is BIRD, Business Innovation Research and Development. NGO. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. >> (off microphone.) >>CHAIR MAJOR: Sorry. I think we have covered what we wanted to cover in the morning and I'm really glad because I can feel some kind of willingness to move forward, so I encourage you to use your time in lunch break for that purpose and come back at 3:00. Thank you. [ Break ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Good afternoon. Well, I'm glad to see that you had a large group discussing recommendations for Group D. I've been briefed about the state of the affairs. I wouldn't call it the results, but the state of the affairs. It's not what I expected in either sense of the word. It's better, but it can be improved. So what I suggest is that probably there should be some more discussion on this issue. I think there is some common ground and I would suggest that you continue this discussion after the afternoon session and eventually you can come back tomorrow morning and tell me about the results. What I would like to see is to have recommendations which are relatively simple, relatively short, and as Mr. Arasteh said, which can be implemented. And that is the bottom line. Recommendations should be implemented. Now, before the break, I asked Japan and other interested parties to have some modifications to the draft recommendation of Japan. I would like to have your report about the work, eventual work you have done during the lunch break. No? >>JAPAN: The -- including Japan, the related members meet together and discuss the recommendation, but we have not still reached consensus, so we haven't amended the recommendation. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Is my understanding correct that you had a separate group? You had a separate discussion from the big group I saw here? >>JAPAN: No. We -- the three groups merged to deal with the whole similar recommendations. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. So I -- let me repeat what I said, that I hope that in the -- after the afternoon session, some of you who would like to get engaged in formulating this group of recommendations, but I can see some common ground and I can see some convergence of ideas. Of course there are divergences, I can feel that. I would like to ask you to sit down and again and try for a second time, eventually a third time, and come out with some recommendations. Iran. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. I think perhaps you have different ways to proceed. One way is to continue to have first some general discussion that everybody listens to everybody else and then go to the level of the small group to try possibly to have some consensus on some things but not the entire text, because they are repetitive in various recommendations and various elements. Perhaps we have to take it starting from a subject we have started before and have an understanding, and the areas we could agree, yes, we agree, and the areas we could not agree, we could not agree. But I think you have to take any of these resolutions. You continue to other parts of the document a general discussion and then going to the level of the group. That might be a possibility. As far as I understood in the last half an hour before your meeting, that there is a ground -- or there's room for some type of understanding among the people. It's a matter of wording, it's a matter of structure, it's a matter of how to address, and it's a matter of approach. And the issue is this: No doubt people differently or separately have written that. They have a right to what they're writing but we have to have a common understanding and have to have a structure, a style, and methodology or approach and so on and so forth. That is my suggestion. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. I think we are on the same wavelength. Okay. So I think as for general ideas, we have already had three meetings, so we more or less know what we are talking about, And since these draft recommendations have been around for some time so it's not -- nothing new, you had ample of time to go through them and eventually you might have had some ideas how to take similar parts, similar ideas from different recommendations and put them together. So it's really a matter of wording and I think if you accept my suggestion to work after the meeting hours, then we can achieve something. Saudi Arabia, you wanted to take the floor? Yeah. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Well, my question, Mr. Chairman, we know the divergence is under Group A and B, so -- and I see it is necessary that you go to A and B and resolve the divergence. Once we do this, C, D, and E will go smoothly. Because if we keep talking about C, D and E, issues from A and B will jump in the discussion. So we are not going anywhere without resolving A and B. At least this is my understanding, but I mean it's up to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I take note of your remark and probably as I indicated and we accepted in the agenda, we are going back to this issue, but first I really want to go through, at least once, all the recommendations. I mean, people have been working -- you know as well as I do you have been working very hard. Other people were working very hard. So let's go through the draft recommendations at least once and see the whole picture, and then we can revisit things we think are beneficial for this discussion. Avri submitted a new version of the recommendations from the group, so can you introduce the new text? >>AVRI DORIA: Certainly. Thank you, Chair. Okay. What we tried to do -- and this was the whole group of us, minus one, who happens to be on an airplane at the moment and I guess one was there some of the time but not always. So what we tried to do was get rid of the offending language. We tried to sort of avoid the twin towers of A and B conflicts while still making the points. So in the first -- and we removed one of the points and brought the content into the others. So the first bullet being, "Recommends that existing mechanisms for public policy related Internet issues take into account existing multistakeholder approaches to Internet governance." On that one, I realize that the word "existing" got used twice, once in reference to mechanisms for public policy and once in reference to multistakeholder approaches. I'm sure a better grammatical choice could have been made. The second one, "Recommends that existing multilateral and multistakeholder mechanisms be used to support enhanced cooperation among all stakeholders, including governments, on an equal footing." Third point: "Encourages the U.N. and the global Internet community to identify mechanisms that can facilitate the collection of financial contributions to support the participation/engagement of all stakeholders from developing countries, to ensure that developing countries have equal leadership with developed countries in development of Internet policy globally." Again, the issue was not that the U.N. had to provide money, but to help identify mechanisms for finding money. So that wasn't removed, although that was one of the comments made. "Encourages and enables developing countries, including both governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders, to play a more effective role in global Internet governance by developing multistakeholder mechanisms at national and regional level and by democratization at all levels, including the global level." Now, there had been a note there that said "this should be mechanisms at international," but what we were trying to say here is that we need to further develop the national and regional levels to contribute to the international, so it seemed redundant to put "at international, national, and regional level." So that -- we tried to take into account the comments, tried to fix the language. I think it's all implementable, but I leave that to others. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. I will give you a couple of minutes to go through. Probably this is the first time you see this version. Before taking your comments, please take the time to go through and then I will turn again to you for your comments. Okay. So I can identify Iran, then Parminder, Saudi Arabia. Please, Kavouss. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. I think what was read is still overlapping some of the ideas -- national, regional, and so on -- and sometimes in some earlier text, it was to extensive and too descriptive, using words that may create difficulty. Perhaps we could reduce that to the minimum necessary. And then I mentioned at the meeting before your formal meeting that there is currently no general understanding of what is multistakeholderisms, their constituencies, their roles and responsibilities, and their footing. People refer to equal footing. Still there is misunderstanding of what equal footing is. If you want, we can explain. If you don't, we don't explain at this stage, because this is coming from the WSIS 2003, 2005. So still this text need to be shortened and should be more precise and more concise and avoid overlapping, mentioning that this issue needs to be formally and properly addressed: what is multistakeholderisms, what is the constituencies of that, and what are the roles and responsibilities of those, and what is the meaning and criteria, the criteria of equal footing. This should be mentioned. It is already elsewhere. We should also mention it here. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Parminder? >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. The first two paragraphs speak of existing price and generally says that the existing organisms, existing stakeholder approaches, and I don't see what -- how it constitutes really a recommendation, especially in terms of practical, implementable. I just -- it seems to me to say that, well, things are what they are. And the second one which says that existing multilateral and multistakeholder mechanisms be used to support enhanced cooperation, and in the smaller group, some participants rightly observed that there's not going to be an acceptance because people don't agree that a new body or mechanism may be needed, which is fine, because there are people who don't agree and therefore, we cannot have a consensus on that. But to recommend that existing mechanisms, whether multilateral or multistakeholder, be used to support enhanced cooperation as a recommendation of a group which has been tasked to give recommendations to fully implement Tunis Agenda in terms of the enhanced cooperation mandate is to say that you don't need a new mechanism. And there are many people who do not agree to that particular stance as well. So in negative, if you say that there is no need of new mechanism is as divisive here as perhaps to say that there is a need for a new mechanism. And therefore, this negative language really does not -- is not acceptable, as you would know, for many people in the room. And the Paragraphs 3 and 4 seem to suggest that if developing countries are not able to participate in global public policymaking on Internet issues, it is either because of the funding issue or because there is no capacity at national and regional level, which I don't accept is the main fact. The main fact is that there is no global mechanism for developing countries to be on equal footing to develop Internet-related policies and these policies are largely developed at the level of multilateral bodies like OECD, Council of Europe, and such bodies which make international treaties, international principles, et cetera. The absence of mechanism is the issue and not the funding and capacity at national and regional levels. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. Saudi Arabia? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, our concern still exists regarding Recommendations 1 and 2, so in short, we don't believe that there is existing mechanism dealing with international Internet public policy issues. Regarding the third recommendation, we are under the group of developing countries and we speak here about "to support the participation and engagement of all stakeholders from developing countries to ensure that developing countries have equal leadership with developed countries in the development." That means equal footing in the development, which is against the Paragraph 35 that defines the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder. I mean, it is -- this is even against Tunis Agenda. The last one, "at national and regional level and by democratic at all levels including global," we do have mechanism at the national and we do mechanism at the regional. The issue is with the international level. There is no mechanisms at the international level to enable all government on equal footing. So I don't see how this recommendation will fully implement enhanced cooperation as (indiscernible) now. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Ellen? >>ELLEN BLACKLER: I wanted to speak in support of this -- these recommendations, and it might help -- if it helps clarify on the second one the multilateral and multistakeholder mechanisms we're talking about, we could say -- reference the mapping that we've done that lists a great many of those. So we could perhaps, if it helps clarify that, say "recommend the existing multilateral and multistakeholder mechanisms, comma, examples of which are in the mapping document," and that may help clarify it. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. India? >>INDIA: Thank you very much, Chair. Just quickly, I don't want to be repetitive. Some of the ideas which we had on the first three paragraphs have been captured by Parminder in more or less very clear terms. I'd like refer my comments to the last paragraph, which is -- see, here there is a contradiction from the perspective that we hold. It would be true from Avri's point of view. But I think the challenge here is twofold. One, we are tell -- we are asking the developing countries themselves to have a greater role in Internet governance, but we're not talking about developing countries. They're already seeking a role. They're saying there is no role. But the perspective that we have to look at is, by making a recommendation like this without defining what is the platform on which you are providing this role, it doesn't make any headway, number one. Number two, well, multistakeholder mechanisms I think -- you know, in formal discussions, I think they -- this point did come up about the need for having greater clarity on multistakeholderism. I think after a very decent meeting, you know, our conviction has become more stronger that there is -- absolutely there is a need to define multistakeholderism, multistakeholder approach, multistakeholder process. As to -- because it means different things for different people who are participating in the meetings. I mean, if there are a group of people who are interpreting the wide swath of opinion that comes in front of the audience and they become adjudicators for everyone else's opinion and thereby it becomes a decision, or whichever way you call it, is an outcome document or a consensus, but whatever name you want to give, and thereby we all clap and go home happy, I think it calls for more serious and thorough engagement of ourselves in defining, on some of the parameters which we have heard some positive elements, which I must con- -- duly acknowledge, with regard to the accountability mechanisms, et cetera. Of course this is not relevant to this particular recommendation that we're making. I think it will be a fitting thing for this working group to certainly pay some attention to this dimension. It only enhances the overall global approach towards multistakeholderism. We're not opposed to this idea, as I said in the beginning also. It is just that we need more greater clarity, and unless we reach that particular level of confidence to use this particular phrase with greater appreciation and greater acceptance, we'll have to do some more homework for which I think this working group might consider, at some stage, spending some time. And with this comment, Mr. Chair, the last paragraph, I think we have challenges on that. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I am glad to hear that you had challenges only with the last one after having told your opinions about the previous one. So multistakeholderism and definition of multistakeholderism, I understand the desire to be precise, but I just want to reiterate, I think one of the first meetings I quoted Max Planck who was the father of quantum mechanics and he was asked, what is quantum mechanics and he said, I don't know but people get used to it. So having said that, Sweden. >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. And we would like to thank the proponents for reworking these recommendations and we would also like to express our support for these four recommendations that we think are very valuable. Just to maybe pick up on the comment made by Parminder previously about the issue of existing mechanisms and the fact that the room is somewhat divided on this issue, we do think, of course, that there are existing mechanisms for dealing with public policy issues related to the Internet and we think that the work of the correspondence group is worth consulting regarding this issue. But we also acknowledge, of course, that we are probably not going to solve that division of interpretation of this issue today, so maybe for the first recommendation if we, instead of talking about mechanisms, could talk about dialogue, which is maybe more general because it's -- maybe that could make this recommendation more acceptable to some. That's just a proposal to try to be a little bit constructive here because I think most of us would at least acknowledge that there -- it does -- there does exist a global dialogue on public policy issues related to the Internet. So that's just a proposal. Thank you. >> My distinguished colleague from Sweden prefers and prefers and prefers to dialogue. Dialogue is already in paragraph 72. How do we have to, after ten years, saying that we now contend that the dialogue is mentioned here. If policy dialogue called Internet governance -- the dialogue is already there. So we not talk of dialogue. So we should talk about the mechanism. The multilateral mechanism and multistakeholderisms and so on and so forth and if there is a need to something. But something we forgot, that is the paragraph A of 35. Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issue is the sovereign rights of the states. That's not the other multistakeholder. Other multistakeholder is paragraph B, C, D, and E. So we have to be very clear. We would like to find a mechanism which could enable government to observe the public policy issues. And admitting of everything -- and my distinguished colleague prefer to dialogue. I don't think we need to. I think in this recommendation the only paragraph is mechanism. What mechanism we have to mention? Existing multilateralism and multistakeholderism with the need to define what is it. People are talking about Civil Society, private sector, technical community, the other academia and the added users, they've added other people, we don't know. An equal footing. What is equal footing, Chairman? Equal footing in WSIS was within the governments only. Not one single government has full authority on everything. Equal footing is not between the government for public policy issue and private sector. Someone will speak on behalf of himself or herself could not say that or have the same footing with somebody speak on behalf of the one billion seven -- 300 million people. This is not equal footing. Public policy issues you'll find by the government who protect the interest of publics. Until you say that no direct government is in the works, everything is out. If you agree that everything is democracy, the government is protecting the rights of the public. So public policy issue goes to the government as we have here. So if you have to mention it. I don't think that we could agree with reference to dialogue. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. Avri. >>AVRI DORIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of points. First of all, I thought we were sort of trying to stay away from replaying A and B in this one, but I'm more than willing to sort of remind that when we're talking about the roles of stakeholders we still have a large gulf. Many of us see the roles of stakeholders and enhanced cooperation not within a single paragraph but in the context of a wider set of paragraphs. Even when we look at paragraph 35, I'd like to point out that there are two sentences in 35. That sovereignty is referred to within the country. It then has a second sentence that sort of says and they have special rights and special response -- they have special responsibilities within the context of international public policy. But it does not say that they have sovereignty within the international public policy of the Internet. So we have two sentences there that get confounded constantly. And that becomes a problem when we try to say that therefore, because of their sovereignty within a nation, that they therefore have sovereignty over public policy in the Internet. Those two do not derive from each other. So -- Now, in terms of equal footing, indeed we do need to go back to A and B and discuss what it means for sectors to have equal footing, not one person versus a government. When people talked about definitions, I come from a philosophical background and I could cover probably a full semester's discussion on just about every word there and the varieties of meaning in that. I'm surprised that nobody challenged me on the word "democratization." That sort of is another word that is difficult to define and I'm sure that if we all defined democratization in this room we would find multiple definitions of it. Also the last thing I wanted to point out is while I have submitted it, there was sort of an implication that this was a northern statement but that the statement was indeed crafted together by Civil Society, by non-governmental actors from both north and south. I just happened to be the one with my name attached to it and the one talking about it here. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Avri. Victoria? >>MARIA VICTORIA ROMERO: Thank you, Chair. Just to express that we feel sympathy for -- we feel -- we like the first paragraph and if you allow me to express that in the case of Mexico it was a very good experience, especially for preparing for NETmundial, to have this multistakeholder approach. And I think it could be very, very useful as well to implementing the whole region with all region of developing countries, especially for Mexico to the south. So I think we have a good experience with the multistakeholder approach. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Baher. >>BAHER ESMAT: Thank you, Chairman. And good afternoon, everyone. I -- I would like to support the recommendations offered by Avri and the group. I think I can understand that some language, and particularly in the fourth paragraph, may raise some concerns, and I think we can work on the language. But in general, I mean, I can just focus on the second recommendation that says that existing mechanisms can be used to support enhanced cooperation and just gives, you know, one example by -- I mean, just focusing on ICANN where I come from and many participants in this room have participated in different ICANN constituencies and processes in the past and I think some of them have noticed that in the past maybe couple of years, through different programs, different initiatives, that the role of the -- the Government Advisory Committee has improved. The Government Advisory Committee played a key role in decisions that were made in one particular program, that is the new gTLD program. Governments had the -- Government Advisory Committee do participate on equal footing. Some people see that the GAC within ICANN is a multilateral process within a multistakeholder mechanism or process. So I -- you know, I don't agree to the notion that there isn't any international multistakeholder mechanisms on IG. I'm just giving an example in one very narrow area which is,you know, DNS which I understand is not expand to cover other IG issues, but I think we -- we need to recognize that there are existing mechanisms in some areas, as much as we need to recognize that there are gaps in any existing mechanisms. And I think that the mapping exercise have identified existing mechanisms and identified certain gaps in those mechanisms. So I think we need to put this -- or take this into account while we're looking at any recommendations because, you know, I think there are some good suggestions and proposals made during the day and just keying that we do not, you know, lose track by just saying well, we do not agree to this language. We need to go to Tunis Agenda or to that language or whatever. Thanks. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Baher. USA. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Chairman. The United States would also like to give its support generally to these recommendations. Obviously there's some words that we might like to wordsmith a little bit, but generally we think these are very good recommendations. And on that note, I guess I would like to agree with the statement by some previous speakers that it's important with the little time we have left to concentrate on what we think we can reach consensus on. Obviously we understand that there's very entrenched views on whether or not there needs to be a new U.N. body. Some of us believe that there should not be such a body and some of us believe there do. Some of us believe that there's no organizations that governments can affect public policy related to the internet. Some of us see the work of the correspondence group and realize that there are quite many. I don't know if that will be solved today. But these are all very good, positive recommendations. You know, we get bogged down talking about the WSIS text on the political level but it was a development oriented summit and these are all expressed needs from the developing world that we can really make some effective contributions and recommendations on. We think it's valuable to move forward in that vein. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Yulia. >>ELANSKAYA YULIA: Well, regarding the stakeholder including government on equal footing, we also cannot agree with that because we are talking about the equality among governments on equal footing and that was the -- just the -- a lot of times we're talking about that. And also, I would like to comment regarding the GAC committee. First, I do not think that this is level of our meeting and our mandate to deal with the GAC statement. First of all, it's advisory committee only, not decision-making committee, first. Second, it's the part of ICANN. It is not -- and we believe that ICANN is not the platform for international public policy issues. So it is not, you know, just the -- the issue to discuss in the level of equal footing participation of government in the international public policy issues. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Any one of the members who would like to take the floor? Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we've had so many times regarding the GAC, that is very clear from its name, governmental advisory group, which work -- >>CHAIR MAJOR: Committee. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Committee. Which work within ICANN and one country alone. So there is not equal footing between government. It is not an international mechanism or framework. So let us be very clear, Mr. Chairman. ICANN is something different, GAC is something different dealing with small part of Internet governance which is technical. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Any other members like to take the floor? If not, observers? Richard? >>RICHARD HILL: Yes, thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to make a couple of comments there. My interpretation of the Tunis Agenda is not the same as the one Avri Doria gave. It seems clear to me the Tunis Agenda is saying that for matters of public policy that is the sovereign rights of states which have responsibilities to their citizens and to me that's clear because it seems to me implicit in the right to influence decisions which is enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also in the ICCPR. So every individual must be able to influence either directly or to his chosen representative public policy decisions and you cannot do that if private companies are on equal footing with Democratically-elected states. I just don't see how that could work. Indeed, the GAC is subordinate to private companies because it has only an advisory role and the GAC representatives on the ICANN Board does not vote. Now, that would not be a problem if there were no public policy matters but if you look at the mandate of the GAC, the mandate of the GAC is precisely to handle public policy matters. So there's a bit of a contradiction there. And as you know our group, The Adjustment Coalition, believes strongly that matters of public policy must be decided Democratically by the elected representatives of the people. Now having said that, I think everyone is talking cross purposes because I think everybody understands that the multistakeholder process -- equal footing multistakeholder process is extremely useful to develop ranges of views and possible consensus. But then when decisions are made at the national level, they go to a national Parliament. And when decisions are made with respect to international law, they're made through the form of treaties. So I think maybe people are just arguing at cross purposes because I don't think people are suggesting that treaties should be made by any mechanism other than elected representatives of the people. I don't think that anybody is saying that laws should be made by any mechanism other than international parliaments. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Richard. Nigel. >>NIGEL HICKSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to be very brief because I think the U.S. delegate is right, we need to move on to text that we can -- we can agree on. But just, I mean, this isn't supposed to be a discussion on ICANN and clearly Richard doesn't seem to quite understand the workings of ICANN, and I can of course discuss ICANN at length but I won't do so. I mean, certainly governments aren't subordinate to private interests at ICANN. But the real essence of my intervention was that I -- taking the first, the first sentence, there is nothing contradictory at all in the first sentence with the Tunis Agenda. The first sentence is not, in any sense of the word, saying that governments do not have the sovereign right to make public policy. That is understood and that's in the Tunis Agenda. But it's also the sovereign right of governments to determine how they make public policy. It's the sovereign right of governments collectively, whether it's in the European Union, the African Union, APAC or whatever, collectively in the WTO, WIPO, or whatever, to have the sovereign right to determine how they make public policy. And in making public policy and exercising that sovereign right, many governments have exercised that sovereign right through a multistakeholder process. Throughout consultation with stakeholders, through joint consultation, through joint discussion, through the evolution decision-making processes with stakeholders. So there's nothing contradictory in encouraging the -- or in governance -- for mechanisms of public policy related Internet issues that take into account multistakeholder processes. It's not saying that governments are losing responsibility or losing their sovereign right. It's just saying that in certain circumstances taking into account a multistakeholder approach could be beneficial. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Nigel. It's definitely not the purpose of this meeting to discuss activities of ICANN and I don't really want to dwell on that issue. There are different views on the role of the Government Advisory Committee, but we are not here to discuss that. Furthermore, I don't think it's in the mandate of interpreting every word of the Tunis Agenda. We really should stick to the mandate and accepting differences where we can accept them and expressing differences where we should express them. However, as it has been said many times, we should concentrate on issues where we can have some common ground and we can have some common understanding and that we can have some consensus of. And before lunch it seemed to me, it seemed to me from your intervention, that the recommendations offered by the group of Avri's was quite favorable and I believe these modifications have been made by Avri according to your interventions. So I can still feel that you are not happy or satisfied with the modifications. So it is not absolutely clear to me that we are -- we are not talking now about wording but we are talking about basic concepts and we didn't have that before lunch, so I'm not really sure where we are now. Eventually, Kavouss where we are. Iran? >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. You have rightly mentioned it is not up to us to interpret the wording of the WSIS, but I can't agree with my distinguished colleagues from ICANN Europe that, yes, it is the right of the government, however the government needs to consult and needs to take into account or engage different multistakeholder in their own country. That is a policy of the government. We are not here to instruct any government how to establish public policy issue inside the government. This is up to them. They are elected by the people, they are in place by the people, and they know -- and they might have some formal or informal consultation and so on. It is not up to us to say that. But never ever the government has been in the existing situation taken into equal footing. The GAC, which is the governmental section, it is an advisory capacity, nonvoting in the entire system. Nonvoting. The one who elected by the government, the chairman of the GAC, is elected by us. Next year -- this year we elect a chairman for 2015 to 2019 but all governments, 154 governments, members of the GAC. Then this gentleman or lady goes to the meeting of ICANN without any right to vote. With respect to whom? With respect to the other board members, they are not elected by the government, they are elected individually -- or not elected, designated by the nomination committee, by internal issue of GAC -- of ICANN. How they could compare that as a representative of government participating in a nonvoting capacity vis-a-vis 16 other directors which are designated, nominated personally by the nomination group? Please read ICANN bylaws. If you read -- read it 10 times. You know, there is no role of the government. Governments have no role at all. I don't want to even have the example. There was a discussion in ICANN with respect to two gTLDs and then the chairman of the GAC was excluded even to participate on nonvoting capacity. Dear Mr. Baher Esmat, the chairman of the GAC was excluded for participation in the review of the two gTLDs. So how could say that government have roles? Government has no role at all. Advisory. Okay. You advise. But I don't take it. This is advice. So I think we should be there. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Kavouss. As I indicated, I really want to stop the discussion about ICANN. This is not our role to go into details of bylaws of ICANN. I really appreciate the time. I'm a member as well of the GAC myself, but I don't think this is a proper place to discuss it. I think we should come back to our basic role. That is, to give recommendations. And the recommendations to my mind are recommendations, they are not treaty, so it's take it or leave it. And with this eye and with this in mind, I would encourage you to be positive and go in this direction. India, please. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I'd like to respectfully disagree with your assessment that these are mere recommendations, take it or leave it. I think at least for India they mean much more than that. The reason being we are created by a U.N. General Assembly resolution and these recommendations would be considered, I'm sure, with all seriousness in the higher levels of the U.N. system as and when they're discussed. And these also come at a time when possibly U.N. General Assembly might come up with a particular mandate for overall implementation of the Tunis Agenda. So from that respect, our work is important. At the same time, it is -- I mean, as a member of this group, we want to be as responsible as we can get, and at the same time, it is -- there are certain fundamental positions that I see in this group that are -- as -- at this point in time, that seem to be not finding a point of convergence, and I think it's very important that we make that recognition and identify those points of con- -- divergence. I think it is -- it will not be -- I mean, we'll not be faulted for having identified those differences, listed them, and number two, move on, that on these issues, well, we could -- as you have agreed also in the past, that we could perhaps list out our opinions and present them as a particular aspect of this group's work. And thereafter, I can be very sure that we would find any number of points of convergence where, if we have identified those core issues of divergence, I think that would be perhaps the right way to do things and we would be -- we will not be faulted, as I said, for having agreed to identify those points of convergence and state it up front. And that is where we move forward. Otherwise, we are caught up in this -- you know, as someone very rightly has pointed out, one of the members -- I forget who it is, but they said that everywhere our vision is getting colored by what we have not been able to achieve in Section A and B, and that particular filter comes in front of us every time we see a recommendation in the subsequent segments. So I think -- I don't think we are right or we're wrong, but I think it's just that the approach that we've adopted is stunting our ability to make any substantive or otherwise progress in the deliberations. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. When I said that we are creating recommendations and not a treaty, I meant it. I am aware of the seriousness of this group and I know the responsibilities we have, and at the same time, I know that draft resolutions of CSTD are being drafted late in the night during a couple of days, and after coming to some conclusion, it is passed to ECOSOC, and then you have the second committee which takes on board the resolution of the ECOSOC and changes it completely. So taking into account, naturally, the resolution of the ECOSOC, there is no doubt about it. So the bottom line, I'm aware that the responsibility we have here is very big and I think all of us do know that. I don't want to belittle it. What I meant by "take it or leave it," it's not treaty like. That was the only thing. Now, as for the opinions, I have nothing against that you come together and present me for tomorrow your opinions. I have nothing against it. I -- I said it last time as well, that you can sit down together and formulate a one-page, one-and-a-half-page as short as possible opinion, and probably I encourage eventually those who may be interested to formulate their opinions in the same way, but I don't really want to have a lengthy one. And if you think this is the way forward and this will remove the obstacles to create recommendations, I'm all for it. So my main purpose is that at the end of the meeting, to come up with some results, because I don't really believe that during four meetings we can't get some results. Especially after the beginning when we managed in one and a half days to formulate a questionnaire of 18 questions, we received substantial replies to the -- responses to the questionnaire. We had a very, very rich contributions. Based on these contributions, we could identify different topics for mapping, existing mechanisms for mapping, finding out what are the gaps. We are in the middle of this exercise. So I think we have gone through quite a long way to achieve something, so if you think -- and that's what I heard as well -- that there are basic things, the differences in Group A and B, I encourage you to formulate your opinion and eventually if there is other groups which would like to do that, I encourage the other group as well to come up with this formulation, this opinion, and let's go on working on the other issues. Is it acceptable? Do you think you can do it for tomorrow? You had -- whatever. I mean, you formulated and other people as well formulated that you'd like to present some opinion about it, about the divergences. Yes, Mr. Reddy. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor again on this subject. I think -- well, I -- as I mentioned in the morning, we could adopt a voluntary process of identifying certain opinions of a group within this working group -- you can call it a subgroup -- and then they perhaps, as I said, without any prejudice to what other group would come up with, the other subgroup would come up with, and we could state up front what are those clear understandings of this working group, that what is said in the report, while there could be consensus and agreement on the overall report but it is not necessarily prejudicing the opinions that have been expressed in some portions of the report. Those caveats can be very clearly explained, and thereby we would have an opportunity to come up with a tangible one. And the second question that you asked me, Chair, about the -- whether I am ready, I think you have -- I will try and -- we'll work along with some colleagues in the room, whoever would like to join, and thereafter we can come up with at least one opinion which can become a basis for other groups, if they wish to. Otherwise -- I mean, we can go parallel. I mean, we are in your hands. Whichever way you wish to do that. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, I don't expect you to be in two groups. Anyway, Saudi Arabia. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think we can call the model to implement enhanced cooperation, model to implement enhanced cooperation, and let us be limited to a maximum one page for each, I mean, views and maximum two models. I think this is better. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Basically, I have no problem with that, so I always want to keep things simple and short but understandable. That is also very important. Phil? >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Can you just clarify the process that we're entering into now? I'm slightly confused as to what we're being asked to do or what's being asked. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: There was a request of India to express an opinion on basic questions which were formulated, I believe, in A and B, and in general about the whole process of implementing the enhanced cooperation, and they wanted to have opinions formulated in a short way with -- I believe with like-minded members of the group, and I encouraged them already during our last meeting, our third meeting, and I already said that -- in our third meeting that these opinions can be part of the report. The modality, in what way it will be part, we shall discuss. And at the same time, I also asked, naturally, that other opinions can be included. If there is a need, then there is a will to formulate such an opinion. And I have been told that probably once we have these different opinions clearly stated, we can go ahead to find the common understanding on issues where there are convergences of opinion. So basically, that's what I said. And I expect to have these opinions the earliest possible. If it's tomorrow morning, then so much the better. I -- this is wishful thinking, of course, but I hope to have it by tomorrow lunchtime. It would be nice to have it. Because let's face it. We have been talking about that and you have been discussing it amongst yourselves, so probably it's -- it comes down to to sit down and draft it. Or eventually it's my job to draft it. I don't know. So basically, that's what I said. Ellen? >>ELLEN BLACKLER: I'm sorry. I just want to check my understanding. So is the idea that we -- that people draft these one-page opinions and we use that as a basis to better understand each other and continue to try to come some recommendations that would form the basis of an outcome document or are these things that would -- you're envisioning being part of the outcome document? >>CHAIR MAJOR: I would think it's the second option. It will be part of the outcome document, just outlining the two possible visions, or eventually more, if need be, of implementing enhanced cooperation. Marilyn? >>MARILYN CADE: Thank you, Chair. Like others in the back row from business, I'm seeking clarification, which may mean I'm in need of remedial help, but I need to just further my understanding here. I thought one thing I was hearing proposed by India -- and I could be wrong -- was the idea of expressing -- and I misunderstood, perhaps. When the word "opinion" was used, I thought that was a brief recommendation, but I'm now understanding that "opinion" is sort of a statement of position, so to speak, which describes a particular perspective, and I -- so that would be one clarification I would seek. The second clarification I would seek is, I actually don't discern only two views in the room. I think there may be at least three. So to that point, are we suggesting that these statements would have drafter names on -- draftee -- drafter names on them or a small -- would they be small working groups with participants in them? They would have drafter names on them? And then to the question of how they're used, I really would ask that we postpone making a definite decision about how they fit into the report until we see how they may help us to advance our work on recommendations as well. But my first question is: So are we looking at a one-pager? Two-pager? I would think -- "opinion," to me, it's sounding more like a position paper, but that may just be a business -- you know, I'm just looking -- I'm looking to know what we're going to do. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I'm sure I can answer your third question about how to include and where to include and what I'm -- naturally, we are going to take a decision at a later stage. As for the two other questions, I will let India eventually answer your question, provided you still remember. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I mean, when we set this particular format of report, if I have to draw the attention of colleagues, we have precedent in the past. We're encouraged by that approach, because when there is significant differences of opinion and each have a respectful place and we are providing that space for that particular opinion in -- as a particular model of achieving enhanced cooperation and thereby fully implement the Tunis Agenda, if we take that as a basis, then we have this work -- the formal -- another group which was set up but already came back, they also came up with such models. Now, I don't think the working group then, I'm sure, was confronted with a very similar situation, that -- where we are today. I don't think they shied away from stating those possibilities up front, and perhaps enabled us subsequently to be picked and chosen from that particular existing models as -- at the higher levels of decision-making. So taking that cue, I don't want to prejudge how many opinions are there in the room, but broadly, as I see it, there are some core issues on which there are a fairly small number of opinions, and subsequently there are many areas where we have some divergences but they can be coalesced into a formal recommendation. So if we provide for those core divergences into those models, into one, two, three -- I mean, two, I guess, would be all right, three, I mean, depending on how you eventually see it, Mr. Chair, and thereafter we can also identify those specific areas where we can perhaps come up with recommendations excluding those few things. However, having said this, the process -- I mean, again, Chair, we'll be guided by you. It could be a voluntary process. I don't think we need to create subgroups, identify each group, who will go in which group. I might be liking some ideas and other opinion -- in another model which is coming up. So it is a voluntary process which you could help us to sort of lead in that direction. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. There's nothing wrong or harmful to include these models or opinions in the report. I should only call your attention to the fact that comparison to the previous working group of Internet governance had a slightly different status. It has been convened by the Secretary General of the United Nations where this working group has been created by the General Assembly of the United Nations. So I can sense some difference as for accountability, and I wouldn't dare to use the word "impact" but eventually even the impact would be slightly different. Having said that, reflecting on the voluntary nature of this group, yes, I agree it should be voluntary so I don't really want to created subgroups. I'm -- probably you can organize yourselves according to your wishes. And it can be done after working hours. And hopefully it will be a very productive outcome. And which will really help us to move forward. And that is the main idea, to move forward. And I have to repeat, even if it seems to be a long time, ten years, it's nothing. And for those who have a long culture and a long history, they know that ten years is nothing. So please be patient. Be patient. We haven't come here to change the world from one day to another. No. It wouldn't work. We can do some small contribution. And if it can come up with eventually these models or opinions and we can really create some recommendations, I think we haven't done -- we haven't done really badly. So probably we have done quite a good job. Sweden, you wanted to take the floor? >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. Just a couple of reflections. I think we are going down a very difficult path to -- but we are prepared to do so, if that's the sentiment of the room, that we should start to focus on where we have some divergent opinions. However, it's important that we make clear what these opinions should be about. Is it on how to implement enhanced cooperation generally or is it on some specific categories of issues that we have recommended? That would be very helpful to know before we start our drafting exercise. I also agree with, I think it was -- well, one of the previous speakers at least that said it might be difficult just to identify two views. I think we are -- we're 25 participants in this working group or 30 maybe, so we -- in theory we could most probably come up with at least as many views. But having said that, we are willing to work with like-minded to try to express some opinion on enhanced cooperation generally, if that's what we will be tasked to do, or some specific categories of issues that have been identified, if that's what we are -- will be tasked to do. However, just two things, to highlight two things that we think might be of importance, one is that -- well, other colleagues have said it as well, we would have to see how we use this -- how we use these opinions and if they would be needed in the end to attach to the report in form of an annex or something like that. But if it's the case that this is going to be a product or 2 or 3 or 4 or 30 products that should be attached to the report, for us, for Sweden, it's very important that it will be explicitly stated which view we subscribe to. Others might have different views on this and might not want to associate themselves with one or the other opinion. But for us, it's very important that it's explicitly stated which opinion that we subscribe to. So I think that may be something that could be dealt with through an annex opinion by, and then you list the different stakeholders that subscribe to opinion 1 and then to opinion 2, and so on. I think that's -- at least for us, that's very important to have that reflected. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I think we are approaching the treatise status. Kavouss. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Yes, I am not thinking of treaty status or anything like that. I think that the discussion's turned around, in my view. Three issues. How to implement Internet public policy issues, roles and responsibilities of each player. One. Two, mechanism. And three, participation. If you have another one, you identify it. Once you identify that, people interested try to sit down and write something, perhaps you have two models, two positions, or three models, but someone wants to have 25, no problem if we have 25 or 35. It depends how many you produce. But I thought we might have two or three. But first you have to come up with topics. I don't see more than that. I think this paper is turning around to three, how to implement Internet public policy issues, roles and responsibilities of each player. Two is mechanism and three is the participation. That's all. And we should sit down and write people is interested either together or two different groups or three different groups or ten different groups, write down something and just present it to discussions. Whether put it in the report or annex, I don't think that we have anything more than this, so what the report would be? The report as we get to it here, have tea and coffee and so on and so forth and produce this. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for reminding me of tea and coffee. ( Laughter ) But we are not there yet. I understand your subconscious. Before I give the floor to Parminder we have to think about the readers who are going to read the report, and I would like to ask you very humbly to try and limit the number of opinions to two or three at most. But if you go beyond that, then I don't think that readers will take it very seriously. Parminder. >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: Thank you, Chair. Taking forward the (indiscernible) parts, which is emerging by interventions by my colleagues and the summing up and also points made by the Chair, I think we -- we need to understand why we are at this stage when we are looking at possibly two or three different opinions. And after understanding that limit our divergences to the small set of things rather than have three or four separate reports. And we would agree after four meetings that there is some developments which comes when you talk every day public policy issues. We agree they are very important. We agree they need to be solved and addressed. But when you come to this point of, you know, a new mechanism or strengthening existing mechanisms, you kind of get into a touchy area -- get into trouble. And I think that's a core point at which alone we -- we should remind the divergences and then concentrate on common points in the report. And therefore, if we can develop two or three models and I'll come to that number later, will we see that after having agreed that they're important public policy issues, they're global in nature, we need to do something about it. Then (indiscernible) and say okay, this is one set of people who think that this is what needs to be done, which is perhaps in nature of some mechanisms, and others who say no, this is the way existing mechanisms have to be strengthened. And I would expect that either one is very practical, implementable, and so on about if somebody wants to understand existing mechanisms, how to do it, whether they want to put a core condition in the mechanism, whether it's not just (indiscernible) or information sharing, et cetera, et cetera. You write here about that heart of the matter, one, one and a half page each, and then again carry on with common elements which all we agree on participation of developing countries has to be increased, stakeholder participation has to be increased, the roles have to be identified better. There are many such things it would be much easier to have a good text, which is common. And now, once we identify this is the reason we are splitting one part of the report, we could also get (indiscernible) how many. And I think if you go back to having 30 submissions, it would be like the initial input stage where each of us told what we really want. And here we want to at least do some convergence work. We agree that we are not able on certain points to converge to one. But if we converge to two or three, we will have done some work. That energy and that purpose is needed. And if we just go back and say each of us really have a different view, but if we don't even do one step of work we will not have contributed something important in this meeting. So meeting the numbers -- and we can -- by participation say only two views. If somebody says no, my view is different from these two views, then perhaps the third view. But effort should be collectively to converge two kinds of views of different -- at least give them -- the people are going to consider write a report two set of options and there are certain kind of body (indiscernible) about it. I agree that it's different from the GAC because it was an expert group and this is a members based group, but still Chair said this would be considered by CSTD and by ECOSOC. And it will be a lot of General Assembly seeing that you have two ways of doing things. You just have to send one thing. But since you are fitting into two different processes, two sets would perhaps be better as you go up and they can resolve into a single set. Lastly, whether we should have names associated with each set of opinions or it should be general, I'm again open, but I think it would be fair to say that this group had divergences and these were two or three sets of groups. Even if I don't agree with that group, to say that there were three groups would still be a statement of fact. But I'm fine either way if there are names associated with each process and not just mention model 1, 2, and 3, which we can consider in the later part of this meeting. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Parminder. I really appreciate your optimism concerning CSTD, ECOSOC and United Nations merging or coming up -- or downsizing the number, but let's be optimistic. Phil. >>PHIL RUSHTON: Thank you, Chair. And apologies for taking the microphone again. I agree with your statement. I think we do need to respect the poor reader in all of this, and I think that should be borne in mind when we're developing opinions going forward. I think if we are to go down this road of developing opinions, I don't think we should be constrained in the nature of the opinions to be submitted nor in the approach that a particular opinion takes. I think whilst having a general format or a general size of document may be useful, I think you've got to allow flexible to ensure that the variations and the nuances of various positions are expressed. I'm hoping that that might lead to some agreement in some places. But I don't think we should try and constrain what is said or what is not said going forward. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Phil. As a fourth vote, naturally I do not want to constrain the opinions themselves. However, probably it would be nice to have some kind of similar approach, in formulating the opinions, to have a kind of similar format in submitting these opinions. And I really rely on you to find out this is the case. USA wanted to take the floor. >>UNITED STATES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions and concerns on behalf of the U.S. I'd like to start, if I may, with a question to you, and perhaps you could respond at some point. I guess my understanding at previous meetings, we discussed the nature of a Chairman's report and perhaps how that might attempt to capture differences of opinion in the room on issues where we were unable to reach consensus on. Obviously there's advantages and disadvantages of doing that, and we have these opinions. I just wanted to check in with you to see if you could assess your concerns about that or your ability to accurately reflect the visions of the opinions in this room over the course of these several meetings. Would agree with the statement of previous speakers that there are probably more than two opinions on all of these issues. I'm concerned that trying to limit the number to two or three, it's a difficult task in itself. Also just as a -- a side note, we did, everyone I think in this room and many other people submitted responses to questionnaires which in fact went into great length to express their opinions on these issues, which is a valuable resource that we can continue to draw on. I'm not sure that boiling it down to a page or two is -- is possible or is a better move compared to those lengthy questionnaires. I agree with you to the extent that the opinions do need to be scoped and we need to be pretty clear on exactly what we're addressing here. I'm not sure right now if we're talking about just A and B or the entirety of the issues we've discussed here. Would also just like to express some concern about the difficulty of doing this in a day or two. I think we'd have a difficult time at the U.S. government getting clearance just amongst yourselves on a document, let alone finding other partners to agree and then to clear on everything as well. I'm concerned also about the absence of some members of this working group who are not here, governments and other stakeholders as well. Particularly those who have contributed quite strongly to meetings in the past and were unable to attend this meeting. I'm worried about the -- the absence of their views to be reflected in these opinions. And then finally, another question for you, Mr. Chairman, just what -- at this point what do we make of the recommendation, are these opinions going to be a full substitute for any recommendations? Are we going to continue to work on recommendations on perhaps ones we thought we were getting close to or are those completely out the window now? Thank you very much. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Definitely you don't make my life easier, do you? You have very delicate questions. I think the first one was on my capacity of being able to draft a report and have the opinions reflected in the report. I think I'm still capable of doing that. If the group wishes to have these opinions reflected in my report or if you trust me enough to reflect your opinions in my report, I'm ready to do that. This solution would provide you I submit some facility not to ask for clearance from back home because it's less -- it's the Chair's report. But it's really up to you. If you want to have it in the group's report, which I still think we should do, and the core of this report should be the recommendations as we are mandated to do, then it's -- as I said, it's up to you. Now, as for the scope of the opinions and having as many opinions as is needed, I have nothing against. I just caution you that if we have too many then we have none. So that's why if we try to keep it in a manageable size, then I think it's better. As for the members who have contributed actively up to now but they are absent, I have all the sympathy for that but probably we have to complete our work during this session and report to the CSTD. So I fully agree with you that probably these opinions should be taken on board as well, but I'm afraid we can't do much better than that. As for the rich contributions we received from -- as responses to the question have we tried our best and a large part has been reflected already, I think, in the living document of the correspondence group, and I stress the word "living document" because probably it will be took on in some way either by the Secretariat or by CSTD, but this is also a decision of the CSTD on how we are going to handle it. So what I really want you to do is, I think it's time to have as -- I have been asked to think about coffee or tea break. During this coffee or tea break, please try and get together, find out how many opinions you'd like to reflect, either in the report or in the Chair's report, and come out with some kind of scope and form what the opinions would look like. And as it has been mentioned, I think it's a voluntary work, and I sincerely hope that once we have that we can proceed with the real work of our mandate that is to give recommendations. So I think we can have a 20-minute break now, and I encourage you to get together and form your groups and come up with some definite results. Thank you. [ Break ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: Can I ask you to take your seats for a few seconds? [ Gavel ] >>CHAIR MAJOR: So I'm happy to see you are in good mood. Welcome back to the meeting after 20 minutes' tea or coffee break, which was about 50 minutes ago. >> (off microphone.) >>CHAIR MAJOR: Well, I will be very short and brief. One administrative request, as I have indicated to you at the beginning of the meeting, to put down your email addresses. For those of you who are not registered for the Google Doc documents, the secretariat can register you for that. That's Point 1. That was the administrative information. The second thing, before the break we kind of agreed that we are going to formulate -- like-minded groups are going to formulate a statement, slash, opinions. We shall decide whatever we are going to call it. So I can sense that this is a kind of important issue for many of the members of the group, and probably I think, in case we can get through formulating these opinions, we can go back to the core of the -- of our mandate and formulate recommendations. So at this point of time, I think I would like to stop the meeting in the plenary way and I would like to encourage you to use the remaining time -- probably the room is available up to 9:00 -- with the notion that there is a soccer match tonight, Chelsea-Atletico Madrid today. It starts at 9:00, if I'm not mistaken. So for those of you who have other interests as well, which I can't really imagine that you have other interests than Internet governance and enhanced cooperation, so -- but in the exceptional case, so there's this match which you may like to watch. USA, you wanted to take the floor. >>UNITED STATES: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My good friend, Mr. Chairman, I think you're going to like me a lot after this intervention. [ Laughter ] >>UNITED STATES: You know, I mentioned before the break some of the concerns we have as a government about this route that has been proposed. I don't think it's been agreed to. The route that's been proposed about having opinions. And after discussing it with our delegation, we would actually -- we think it's a better, more appropriate route, for you as the chairman to attempt in your report to reflect the nature of arguments in this working group from its onset, do the best to capture where there are areas of agreement, the areas of disagreement, and capture that in your report. We trust you. You've been an able chairman and we think that given the mandate of this group, where opinions of state -- these opinions that never came into the mandate, we think the questionnaires already reflect their opinions on this. They can stand on their own. We ask you, then, Mr. Chairman to include in your chairman's report the nature of discussions in this group. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. As I indicated, I have nothing against including it in my report if the group agrees to that, and naturally I'm capable of doing it, provided you give me input. And irrespective in whatever form we are going to do it, I think the way forward is what has been indicated by the delegation of India to come up with these concise opinions, and in case there's a wish to have it in my report, it will be included in my report. In case we have no agreement on that, then we shall discuss it. Sweden? >>SWEDEN: Thank you, Chairman. We, too, are a little bit concerned about where we're heading now, and we have two more days before -- of this meeting, and after that we should report to the CSTD on our mandate. And our mandate is to make recommendations on how to implement enhanced cooperation, and I don't think that's where this work is leading us at all, actually. Instead of trying to reach consensus and spend the next two days on trying to reach consensus on some recommendations, it seems that we should focus our energy on formulating divergent views and opinions, and that's not a good way of utilizing the two days that we have left, so we also think that it would be much preferred to have -- to give the task to you, Chairman, to reflect in the report in a factual and a high-level manner that there were some views -- that there were some issues on which we had divergent views. We think that's a much better way to move forward than to task ourselves with drafting maybe rather maximalist positions on certain issues and have that reflected in the report. We think that it's really -- really not within the mandate of this group and so we support the intervention by the U.S. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: So you want to increase my workload. Okay. Mexico? >>MEXICO: Thank you, Chair. I think Japan was first. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Oh. Okay. Japan. >>JAPAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to support U.S. and Sweden's proposal because we have limited time so we have to focus on making recommendations, so I think we should not take time to develop opinions and diversity of opinions should be reflected in the report of the working group, so we should focus on making recommendations and to reach consensus. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Mexico? >>MEXICO: Thank you, Chair. I would like to also add my voice to some of the previous colleagues that are saying that we are really wondering whether the way forward that you put we have in front of us is the best one, and for my delegation, it's very difficult to make recommendations because our recommendations are already in this document and we are flexible enough to try to accommodate some of our concerns in others' proposals, and if we are not going to negotiate and if some others are not willing to negotiate and be flexible enough, then we'd rather trust you to reflect in your report our views, and there is nothing else we can do, and thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Saudi Arabia? >>SAUDI ARABIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think since the first meeting, all of us came here with good faith to develop a set of recommendations, and at the last meeting, as we showed, the divergence got larger and larger and larger and this option was flagged since the last meeting, where I think there was a majority of agreement there is no consensus number of models will be included in the report. So I don't see this -- that this option now is a surprise to many of the members. It was, I mean, flagged last meeting. If there is no consensus on the major issues, as stated by either delegate drafting the report with no much recommendation in how to implement enhanced cooperation, it's only words on papers. We don't need this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Iran? >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. You know that we like you very much and we don't want to bother you and we don't want to give you such a big responsibility, although you might have wider shoulders, but we don't want -- we want to share everything with you but not giving everything to you as related to the report on behalf of us in your colleague -- chairman's report or chairman's summary, because the resolution does not ask for the chairman's summary. It's a report of the meeting. And it would be good if we can have on any point consensus. So far so good. But if we cannot, we could not make a miracle and we could not invent anything. If, on the main subject, we don't have consensus, on the subset, consensus has no real meaning. So first we have to have how to handle the enhanced cooperation with respect to the Internet public policy issues including the roles and responsibilities of government and so on and so forth. And the second one is the mechanisms. We have to see what are the mechanisms that we have -- multistakeholder, multilateral mechanisms -- and then the responsibilities and the definitions, footing -- Third one is participation. In third one, which is a subset of the two, we may arrive at something that's participation but also that one goes to the first one, when you talk about multistakeholder. If you have difficulty how to define multistakeholder, how could we talk about the participation of multistakeholder? So that is the -- see, they are connected to each other. But I think we have no problems to have the various views, different positions, and so on and so forth. Should people believe that we could have some consensus on the multistakeholder mechanism or multistakeholderisms, we try, but I don't see that one. What we don't want to mention that we come to here after several meetings saying that, "Okay, we recommend to each other to dialogue." There is no need for any recommendations under everything, including the human rights. We are free to dial up with anybody and everybody. We don't need any recommendations because it weakens the essence of the dialogue if you recommend, because the recommendation, you make take it or not take it, so I don't think that we should go with the dialogue and so on. Thank you very much, Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Ellen? >>ELLEN BLACKLER: Thank you. I wanted to support Japan and Mexico and others who expressed skepticism at this process. I'm afraid that it puts our energy into articulating our differences and not working on our common ground, and frankly will be a reiteration of what people have put in -- both in the questionnaire and in the recommendations. I just don't see people saying new things. They're going to say the same things they've said and we know what they are. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Ellen. India? Oh, Nigeria. Sorry. >>NIGERIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, there are issues that seem to be a cog in the wheel of progress, and when we come to interpretation of the Tunis Agenda, Paragraph 69, at times make reference to it as a Constitution, forgetting that there are Paragraphs 70 and 71 that actually should have some kind of flexibility in that area. In a situation whereby we may think that (indiscernible) saying anything about Internet matters is an exclusive precept of government and any policy that will not -- make government not to be at the helm of affairs will probably dictate what happens on the Internet may not be -- [ Scribes have lost audio ] -- to the, for example, the General Assembly, I do not see how the Chair summary that we go from this working group can be nothing but a factual report of the meetings that have taken place and a clear recommendation that no recommendations could be made by the working group without attributing the differences of opinion because they're already contained in the Web site, they're already in the same argument which some of the colleagues have put forward. By the same token, the Chair should merely state the facts, that so many meetings held, these are the dates, we tried very hard, too bad we couldn't make recommendations, hence that is the report of the chair, if there is a Chair's report, and that is the direction which we are planning to go. I don't think there's any option and those commenting on the merits of the opinions, because they are contained in the various contributions that have been made by members in this group and there have been commentaries on it and there have been interventions by members in this working group as well as those observers, as well as remote participants, they're all available to us. After that I don't think there's any further need to compress that into an opinion of the Chair. It should merely be a statement of fact, if that is the direction the working group is asked to go. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: I just want to reflect on what you said. I'll be surprised by the pessimism you expressed. As you know, I'm still optimistic. I'm optimistic that we are going to achieve and we shall fulfill our mandate. As for the report itself, I know the wording of the UNGA resolution. I chaired the previous working group on improvements of -- on -- of the IGF which had the same wording, and on this occasion it was my report which was presented to the CSTD with the recommendations. So the factual information which was contained in the report was supplemented by some descriptive information and followed by the recommendations. So it wasn't clear at that time and it's still not clear how -- what is meant by the working group report. At that time the group gave me the mandate to draft it, and I have heard voices here as well to -- that say trust me. I had words -- even -- I didn't hear any comments about mistrust. But more seriously, in whatever way we are going to move forward, it would be useful, I think, that we had these opinions or statements, even though we had them extensively on the Web site, we have it from transcripts, we have it in the recordings, but it would be nice to have some in a written form, in a short form. And I didn't hear any objection against that, except that you need clearance, which is -- I understand is a very substantial argument. But first, I think we should try it. We should try it and in any case, in any case, if it comes to the option that I'm going to write these divergence opinions, I'm going to rely on the transcripts and on the recordings. So basically the only thing I ask from you is do it for me. That's how I see things now. I heard also quite a strong wish to clear the obstacles from formulating recommendations by means of having these opinions because I was told that the main obstacle to formulate, to come to a common agreement on details, on recommendations, is the fact that we don't have an agreement or we don't have a clear view of differences on some kind of basic issues. So that's why I thought that it was kind of agreed by many of the members to go in this way. Now, I can see that not all of you would like to do that. So I am a bit perplexed. Because, in fact, I didn't ask for a great thing. I just wanted to ask you to write down your opinions about basic issues. Nothing else. So I could see Sweden and India. >>SWEDEN: And thank you, Chairman. Unfortunately, I think we would have to disagree with part of your summary because I think, first of all, some delegations just raised concerns about this way forward with drafting opinions by different groupings, expressing divergent views and emphasizing contradictions because that's, in fact, what we will be doing most probably and that's not within our mandate and it's also not within the spirit of the working method of this working group. I think it was made clear from the beginning a year ago that we were supposed to work by consensus and so that our target, our objective, was to achieve consensus recommendations. So I think there were some divergent views on this actually. And it's not only not necessarily a good usage of our time and against our mandate, but it's also putting emphasis on contradictions within the group and that can -- in our opinion, that would not be very beneficial for the process forward and for the CSTD when the CSTD and the ECOSOC should evaluate what's the -- what's the contributions of the -- and the results of this work. We also question whether or not there is common understanding in the room that just because that we have stated positions on some issues that we will be able to -- that that would facilitate our work with recommendations on some issues. Because I think there are divergent views here. There are those that think maybe some categories, some of the five categories are more core to -- more of the core of the enhanced cooperation than others. And then there is another opinion that we share and that's that all these five categories should be treated equally and they're equally important for enhanced cooperation. So that goes back to the very understanding of the concept of enhanced cooperation and we have been discussing that at length as well. Then finally, I think it's not as easy as it sounds just to go -- go away and write statements without knowing on exactly what these statements should be about, how they should be used, where they should be reflected, and whether or not there will be attribution to those statements or not. So there are a lot of outstanding questions also regarding the -- the way forward, if we were to go down this path to -- to spend the rest of our time here this week trying to carve out our differences and our contradictions. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you, Per. India. >>INDIA: Thank you, Chair. I didn't want to take the floor again, but just to mention that I have a copy of the report of the working group on improvements of Internet Governance Forum. It is indeed a report prepared by the chair. But that is -- took all the recommendations the report has been prepared. But the chair summaries of each of the working groups sessions have been listed as attachments. Available at a particular Web site. But what potentially the report contains is the recommendations of the working group. So I just thought it's useful to have clarification that -- what can be part of the chairman's report or chairman's summary because if we are unable to make recommendations, I -- we fully understand that there's a challenge and I think we all want to go in a different direction, that's why India suggested a way out at the very early stages of this meeting, so that looking at the large interest that we all have in success of this working group, that we agree on few but -- vaguely but we state that what are the requirements and therefore be able to move forward. If that approach is not something which is not a way to do -- go forward, then I'm afraid as to -- to see any qualitative report -- we can have a quantitative report but not a qualitative report of the chair. So that's the challenge which I think we should recognize. And we would be very keen to see as to what would go into the Chair summary, which will be eventually submitted to the CSTD. Thank you, Chair. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you for reminding me of the report, which is my report which I completely forgot. However, you reminded me of a very important part, and in fact, it's a report which has followed the way you described. And we had also groups of recommendations and we had a chapeau for the groups. And, in fact, the chapeau was kind of capturing the essence of the topic itself. And even though the task was much simpler in that working group, though at that time it didn't feel it, we felt that we are overwhelmed by the enormity of the task but compared to this one, it was a simple task. So getting back to the chapeau, I had the honor of writing the chapeau. So if this is the way forward, and in the hope that we are going to have recommendations, I'm ready to do it again, to formulate in a chapeau for each group the possible approaches to tackle that group of issues which are under the heading of the five headings we have. So I leave it to you to decide if this is the way forward and the way out. Because right now I think we are in a stalemate. Saudi Arabia. You're on. Yeah. >>IRAN: Saudi Arabia start with A, so first Saudi Arabia. Iran start with I. After A. Thank you. >>SAUDI ARABIA: Okay, Mr. Arasteh is older than me somewhat. [ Laughter ] I mean, this practice is kind of confusing us, our Saudi delegation. The process isn't very clear now. We would take the legal adviser's opinions on the Hungary resolution, what is our working group report, who will write the working group report, and these issues attached to the Hungary resolution mandate to us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. Iran. >>ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Thank you, Chairman. We have seen or we have witnessed many, many other meetings. It will be extremely difficult, even Chairman's summary that be properly reflecting what has happened. There's no point to all the discussion of tossed or not tossed. The problem is that you are a human being and you have a taste of the word, choose or selection of the word and any adjective you use may be subject to various interpretations. So we suggest that you just -- as to our different views, you reflect a different view, then your report will be very simple. Distinguished Chairman of the CSTD please find attached the various views expressed at the meeting with respect to the following topics and put the topics, enhanced cooperation implementation, according to WSIS and the second would be multistakeholder -- I'm sorry, (indiscernible) implemented and that would be how to -- and fourth would enhance or -- foster the participation, that's all. Any -- any -- any attempt that you try to put would be misinterpreted in one way or the other. You have seen that in the WSIS forum. There was problems and so on and so forth. So we don't want to prepare any ground to criticize you. We want to have you as a good friend and always be in the safe side and not to having subject to any criticism for any side. It will be very difficult for you, Chairman. So I don't think that you should try to have that one as the Chairman's views and so on and so forth. Your views, you can tell it to the CSTD personally, this is your views, verbally or orally but I don't think that any written form. It would be extremely difficult. If you could have any consensus, so far, so good. I don't think there are any grounds for consensus. If there is any, okay, let's do. If not, different views, different positions or whatever different models, different -- I don't think what you call them. And that is that. I don't think you could invent anything. And it would be difficult if we leave it to you as you prepare your Chairman's report, Chairman's views and so on and so forth. Difficult. Misinterpretation, we have that. I'm sorry, I didn't want to give any practical example of that. Please accept that. Otherwise it would be problems if I quote any particular meeting. We have been in many meetings. We know what has happened. A lot of has happened. Chairman, you are dealing with one of the most serious, most delicate subjects of this booklet. So it would be extremely difficult for you to report any board or Chairman views. You give your own views and we cannot share them. And we don't want to say these views are not shared by X and Y. Thank you. >>CHAIR MAJOR: Thank you. I don't expect that the outcome of this meeting would end our friendship, and I trust that this is true for all of you. But in a more serious tone, I think we have come now to a stalemate. I would like to stop here. I would like to give you some time to think about how to -- how to come out of this. I expect you back by 9:00 tomorrow. You may use your time in whatever way you'd like to. Those of you who would like to form your opinions, do not hesitate to do that. We have a few who would like to have a clearance. Do not hesitate to make a phone call. And those of you who would like to watch the soccer match, feel free to do it. Thank you. See you tomorrow. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DRAFTfinal report-140501 Type: application/octet-stream Size: 29670 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 2 02:30:10 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 15:30:10 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <53633537.60708@acm.org> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> Message-ID: <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the meeting. Good luck today. About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the chair. Thanks again, Adam On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed > recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a > day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. > > We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the > report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of > fundamental disagreement: > > - This is marvelous work that should become a living document > > - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now > lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps. > > Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and > needs further discussion. > > The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially > the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: > > - among governments > > - among all stakeholders. > > One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include > discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's > participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced > Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: > > - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the > real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments > and a new body wherein those discussions can be held > > - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders. > > Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on > as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some > point in day 3. > > As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced > Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these > models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with > some some arguing: > > - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and > there seem to be some such points > > - we should discuss the various oppositional models. > > At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only > accepting certain text because they expected a document that would > include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the > points they had just accepted. > > We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" > > - a chair's report > > - a WG group > > Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is > likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. > > A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is > attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions > > A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have > begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional > problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There > is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: > > - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more > a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve > > - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure > > Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of > the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. > > Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using > twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed > how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven > discussions are in todays' world. > > Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and > free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that > underlay our discussions. > > avri > > PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can > correct or amplify this quick report. > <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From avri at acm.org Fri May 2 03:46:32 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 09:46:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <53634D58.2090506@acm.org> Hi, sometimes tweets are reflective. and sometime we object to what we see in the mirror. avri On 02-May-14 08:30, Adam Peake wrote: > Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays > discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions > during the meeting. Good luck today. > > About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can > see who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify > with the chair. > > Thanks again, > > Adam > > > On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed >> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least >> half a day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. >> >> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While >> the report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point >> of fundamental disagreement: >> >> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document >> >> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, >> now lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to >> fill the gaps. >> >> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed >> and needs further discussion. >> >> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, >> especially the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: >> >> - among governments >> >> - among all stakeholders. >> >> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include >> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and >> women's participation in the Internet governance as part of >> Enhanced Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the >> discussion: >> >> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing >> the real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between >> governments and a new body wherein those discussions can be held >> >> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all >> stakeholders. >> >> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion >> went on as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will >> resurface at some point in day 3. >> >> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced >> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including >> these models in the document. This discussion continued the second >> day with some some arguing: >> >> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus >> on, and there seem to be some such points >> >> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. >> >> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only >> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would >> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of >> the points they had just accepted. >> >> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would >> have" >> >> - a chair's report >> >> - a WG group >> >> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and >> is likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. >> >> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is >> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's >> discussions >> >> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments >> have begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these >> oppositional problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder >> discussion. There is every chance that a final oppositional >> impression is being set up: >> >> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs >> more a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve >> >> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure >> >> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers >> of the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this >> discussion. >> >> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for >> using twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, >> this showed how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis >> Agenda driven discussions are in todays' world. >> >> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression >> and free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions >> that underlay our discussions. >> >> avri >> >> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these >> lists can correct or amplify this quick report. >> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>> report-140501>____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your >> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu May 1 05:45:15 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 18:45:15 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> Message-ID: <42B5B981-D183-4C35-A77D-08F1CEB6E578@glocom.ac.jp> Thanks Ian. My concern is that the statement seemed to come from civil society, i.e. all in the room, and that is unfair. We've had this problem before, and I know from experience it's easy to not be exact. But still a shame to give the wrong impression. I am not questioning anyone's right to make a statement (or to walk out -- at least when walking out it's clear on whose behalf the feet are moving :-)) What version of the document leaked? Could you share that with the list. Thanks, Adam On May 1, 2014, at 4:44 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > The Niels statement was drawn up quickly by a group of about 30 of us sitting in the CS quarters of the conference hall after the changed text was leaked showing the last minute changes after the text left the two drafting committees. > > Some of us would have gone further. Some were considering a walk out. The text was probably indicative of a more balanced approach given the mood at the time. > > With a bit of distance from the disappointment at those changes, perhaps many feel differently. But it was an honest attempt to capture the mood at the time and I am personally glad civil society said something rather than nothing. > > But with a bit of distance from the event perhaps many of us have other thoughts. > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:31 PM > To: Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: Andrew Puddephatt ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement > > > > > On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. >> > > > Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to speak and who did they say they represented? > > Adam > > > >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >>> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole process. I can’t support this statement >>> >>> Andrew Puddephatt >>> Global Partners Digital >>> Andrew at gp-digital.org >>> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >>> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >>> >>> >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >>> To: "" >>> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement >>> >>> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >>> >>> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society response later. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From Lea at gp-digital.org Fri May 2 03:46:41 2014 From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 08:46:41 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, I think this accurately captures the state of play. One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over into other fora (ITU, WSIS review). Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, there are two likely options: 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR. 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data. Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for assessment (currently absent). Stay tuned. Lea Sent from my iPhone > On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the meeting. Good luck today. > > About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the chair. > > Thanks again, > > Adam > > >> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed >> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a >> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. >> >> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the >> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of >> fundamental disagreement: >> >> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document >> >> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now >> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps. >> >> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and >> needs further discussion. >> >> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially >> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: >> >> - among governments >> >> - among all stakeholders. >> >> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include >> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's >> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced >> Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: >> >> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the >> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments >> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held >> >> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders. >> >> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on >> as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some >> point in day 3. >> >> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced >> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these >> models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with >> some some arguing: >> >> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and >> there seem to be some such points >> >> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. >> >> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only >> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would >> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the >> points they had just accepted. >> >> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" >> >> - a chair's report >> >> - a WG group >> >> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is >> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. >> >> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is >> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions >> >> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have >> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional >> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There >> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: >> >> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more >> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve >> >> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure >> >> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of >> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. >> >> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using >> twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed >> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven >> discussions are in todays' world. >> >> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and >> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that >> underlay our discussions. >> >> avri >> >> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can >> correct or amplify this quick report. >> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > From nigel.hickson at icann.org Fri May 2 04:15:38 2014 From: nigel.hickson at icann.org (Nigel Hickson) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 01:15:38 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Good morning Although I am just an Observer here in the WG (and this is only my second meeting) I would, like others, to endorse this eloquent and important summary of our deliberations yesterday. This is a difficult but important meeting. It is somewhat like a cold shower after the warm water and atmosphere in Brazil. We do though need to continue. Particularly keen to endorse the importance of the proposal Avri submitted on the role of women and the superb work of Correspondence Group. Best Nigel From: Adam Peake Reply-To: Adam Peake Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 8:30 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: "Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the meeting. Good luck today. About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the chair. Thanks again, Adam On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed > recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a > day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. > > We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the > report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of > fundamental disagreement: > > - This is marvelous work that should become a living document > > - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now > lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps. > > Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and > needs further discussion. > > The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially > the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: > > - among governments > > - among all stakeholders. > > One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include > discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's > participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced > Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: > > - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the > real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments > and a new body wherein those discussions can be held > > - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders. > > Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on > as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some > point in day 3. > > As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced > Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these > models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with > some some arguing: > > - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and > there seem to be some such points > > - we should discuss the various oppositional models. > > At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only > accepting certain text because they expected a document that would > include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the > points they had just accepted. > > We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" > > - a chair's report > > - a WG group > > Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is > likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. > > A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is > attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions > > A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have > begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional > problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There > is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: > > - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more > a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve > > - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure > > Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of > the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. > > Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using > twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed > how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven > discussions are in todays' world. > > Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and > free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that > underlay our discussions. > > avri > > PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can > correct or amplify this quick report. > <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5027 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri May 2 04:53:31 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 14:23:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Adam and all, The governments that object to tweeting claim that their statements are taken out of context in the tweets. By way of background, though nobody came up to me to complain (I'm an observer in the meeting, and have been tweeting on and off), one of the tweets that was supposedly objected to is this one: Equal participation of women in Internet governance is ending up massive stumbling block in the #WGEC. Saudi Arabia can't agree to language As anyone who checks the transcript will see, we ended up negotiating endlessly on the language of that recommendation, as promoting "the full and equal participation" from women in Internet governance turned out to be too contentious a phrase - the fact that the phrase "the full and equal participation" is included in numerous HRC resolutions (and thus is "already agreed text" in the UN system) notwithstanding. I therefore cannot quite see how this tweet takes anything out of context. I didn't mention any government in the other two tweets I sent on this issue. Interestingly, it is not the first time that I hear governments object to live tweets from meetings. Such objections raise important questions about the expectations different stakeholder groups have of these processes. Clearly, some governments are not feeling particularly comfortable about the fact that their statements in meetings such as these are now shared real-time with the world on popular platforms, which goes against the diplomatic conventions they are used to. Seeing their repeated reminders in the same meetings that they are the representatives of the people, I find this discomfort interesting. For civil society, the question is of course whether we want to adapt to existing diplomatic conventions or whether we want to try to somewhat reframe the terms of these debates as they take place in a multistakeholder environment (and this question was raised by parts of the NETmundial process as well, I feel). It deserves a bit more thought how we can be most effective. Best, Anja On 2 May 2014 13:16, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, I > think this accurately captures the state of play. > > One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC > should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the > mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the > Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also > strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over > into other fora (ITU, WSIS review). > > Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, there > are two likely options: > 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD > Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR. > 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data. > > Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an > independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for > assessment (currently absent). > > Stay tuned. > > Lea > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays > discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the > meeting. Good luck today. > > > > About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see > who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the > chair. > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Adam > > > > > >> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed > >> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a > >> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. > >> > >> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the > >> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of > >> fundamental disagreement: > >> > >> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document > >> > >> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now > >> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the > gaps. > >> > >> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and > >> needs further discussion. > >> > >> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially > >> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: > >> > >> - among governments > >> > >> - among all stakeholders. > >> > >> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include > >> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's > >> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced > >> Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: > >> > >> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the > >> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments > >> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held > >> > >> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all > stakeholders. > >> > >> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on > >> as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some > >> point in day 3. > >> > >> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced > >> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these > >> models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with > >> some some arguing: > >> > >> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and > >> there seem to be some such points > >> > >> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. > >> > >> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only > >> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would > >> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the > >> points they had just accepted. > >> > >> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" > >> > >> - a chair's report > >> > >> - a WG group > >> > >> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is > >> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. > >> > >> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is > >> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions > >> > >> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have > >> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional > >> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There > >> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: > >> > >> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more > >> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve > >> > >> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure > >> > >> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of > >> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. > >> > >> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using > >> twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed > >> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven > >> discussions are in todays' world. > >> > >> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and > >> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that > >> underlay our discussions. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can > >> correct or amplify this quick report. > >> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt> report-140501>____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 2 05:29:25 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:29:25 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> Message-ID: <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> Thanks Anja. Very disappointing to read the pig-headedness over participation of women. Don't tweet, use Chatham House rule... makes no sense, there's a live transcript (which has the USA as just saying "I AGREE CERTAINLY WITH THE DISTINGUISHED CLIENT FROM IRAN" ... oh, that's new :-)) Adam On May 2, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > Hi Adam and all, > > The governments that object to tweeting claim that their statements are taken out of context in the tweets. > > By way of background, though nobody came up to me to complain (I'm an observer in the meeting, and have been tweeting on and off), one of the tweets that was supposedly objected to is this one: > > Equal participation of women in Internet governance is ending up massive stumbling block in the #WGEC. Saudi Arabia can't agree to language > > As anyone who checks the transcript will see, we ended up negotiating endlessly on the language of that recommendation, as promoting "the full and equal participation" from women in Internet governance turned out to be too contentious a phrase - the fact that the phrase "the full and equal participation" is included in numerous HRC resolutions (and thus is "already agreed text" in the UN system) notwithstanding. I therefore cannot quite see how this tweet takes anything out of context. > > I didn't mention any government in the other two tweets I sent on this issue. > > Interestingly, it is not the first time that I hear governments object to live tweets from meetings. Such objections raise important questions about the expectations different stakeholder groups have of these processes. Clearly, some governments are not feeling particularly comfortable about the fact that their statements in meetings such as these are now shared real-time with the world on popular platforms, which goes against the diplomatic conventions they are used to. Seeing their repeated reminders in the same meetings that they are the representatives of the people, I find this discomfort interesting. > > For civil society, the question is of course whether we want to adapt to existing diplomatic conventions or whether we want to try to somewhat reframe the terms of these debates as they take place in a multistakeholder environment (and this question was raised by parts of the NETmundial process as well, I feel). It deserves a bit more thought how we can be most effective. > > Best, > Anja > > > > > > > On 2 May 2014 13:16, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, I think this accurately captures the state of play. > > One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over into other fora (ITU, WSIS review). > > Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, there are two likely options: > 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR. > 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data. > > Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for assessment (currently absent). > > Stay tuned. > > Lea > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the meeting. Good luck today. > > > > About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the chair. > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Adam > > > > > >> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed > >> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a > >> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. > >> > >> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the > >> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of > >> fundamental disagreement: > >> > >> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document > >> > >> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now > >> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps. > >> > >> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and > >> needs further discussion. > >> > >> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially > >> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: > >> > >> - among governments > >> > >> - among all stakeholders. > >> > >> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include > >> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's > >> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced > >> Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: > >> > >> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the > >> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments > >> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held > >> > >> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders. > >> > >> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on > >> as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some > >> point in day 3. > >> > >> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced > >> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these > >> models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with > >> some some arguing: > >> > >> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and > >> there seem to be some such points > >> > >> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. > >> > >> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only > >> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would > >> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the > >> points they had just accepted. > >> > >> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" > >> > >> - a chair's report > >> > >> - a WG group > >> > >> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is > >> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. > >> > >> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is > >> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions > >> > >> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have > >> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional > >> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There > >> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: > >> > >> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more > >> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve > >> > >> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure > >> > >> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of > >> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. > >> > >> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using > >> twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed > >> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven > >> discussions are in todays' world. > >> > >> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and > >> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that > >> underlay our discussions. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can > >> correct or amplify this quick report. > >> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From joana at varonferraz.com Fri May 2 05:44:26 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 06:44:26 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Thanks Avri for the excellent report and powerful interactions through out the day. I guess the rule of the day here is: tweet The expectations... very low. Major question since the results from NetMundial is how to bring groundbreaking parts of the outcome text to be debated in the UN system. In the WGEC, we clearly failed so far. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Anja. > > Very disappointing to read the pig-headedness over participation of women. > > Don't tweet, use Chatham House rule... makes no sense, there's a live > transcript (which has the > USA as just saying "I AGREE CERTAINLY WITH THE DISTINGUISHED CLIENT FROM > IRAN" ... oh, that's new :-)) > > Adam > > > > On May 2, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > > Hi Adam and all, > > > > The governments that object to tweeting claim that their statements are > taken out of context in the tweets. > > > > By way of background, though nobody came up to me to complain (I'm an > observer in the meeting, and have been tweeting on and off), one of the > tweets that was supposedly objected to is this one: > > > > Equal participation of women in Internet governance is ending up massive > stumbling block in the #WGEC. Saudi Arabia can't agree to language > > > > As anyone who checks the transcript will see, we ended up negotiating > endlessly on the language of that recommendation, as promoting "the full > and equal participation" from women in Internet governance turned out to be > too contentious a phrase - the fact that the phrase "the full and equal > participation" is included in numerous HRC resolutions (and thus is > "already agreed text" in the UN system) notwithstanding. I therefore cannot > quite see how this tweet takes anything out of context. > > > > I didn't mention any government in the other two tweets I sent on this > issue. > > > > Interestingly, it is not the first time that I hear governments object > to live tweets from meetings. Such objections raise important questions > about the expectations different stakeholder groups have of these > processes. Clearly, some governments are not feeling particularly > comfortable about the fact that their statements in meetings such as these > are now shared real-time with the world on popular platforms, which goes > against the diplomatic conventions they are used to. Seeing their repeated > reminders in the same meetings that they are the representatives of the > people, I find this discomfort interesting. > > > > For civil society, the question is of course whether we want to adapt to > existing diplomatic conventions or whether we want to try to somewhat > reframe the terms of these debates as they take place in a multistakeholder > environment (and this question was raised by parts of the NETmundial > process as well, I feel). It deserves a bit more thought how we can be most > effective. > > > > Best, > > Anja > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 May 2014 13:16, Lea Kaspar wrote: > > Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, > I think this accurately captures the state of play. > > > > One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC > should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the > mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the > Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also > strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over > into other fora (ITU, WSIS review). > > > > Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, > there are two likely options: > > 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD > Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR. > > 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data. > > > > Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an > independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for > assessment (currently absent). > > > > Stay tuned. > > > > Lea > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > > > > > Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays > discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the > meeting. Good luck today. > > > > > > About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see > who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the > chair. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed > > >> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half > a > > >> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. > > >> > > >> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While > the > > >> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of > > >> fundamental disagreement: > > >> > > >> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document > > >> > > >> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now > > >> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the > gaps. > > >> > > >> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed > and > > >> needs further discussion. > > >> > > >> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially > > >> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: > > >> > > >> - among governments > > >> > > >> - among all stakeholders. > > >> > > >> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include > > >> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and > women's > > >> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced > > >> Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: > > >> > > >> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the > > >> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments > > >> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held > > >> > > >> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all > stakeholders. > > >> > > >> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went > on > > >> as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some > > >> point in day 3. > > >> > > >> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced > > >> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including > these > > >> models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with > > >> some some arguing: > > >> > > >> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, > and > > >> there seem to be some such points > > >> > > >> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. > > >> > > >> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only > > >> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would > > >> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the > > >> points they had just accepted. > > >> > > >> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" > > >> > > >> - a chair's report > > >> > > >> - a WG group > > >> > > >> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is > > >> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. > > >> > > >> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is > > >> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions > > >> > > >> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have > > >> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these > oppositional > > >> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. > There > > >> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: > > >> > > >> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs > more > > >> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve > > >> > > >> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure > > >> > > >> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of > > >> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. > > >> > > >> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using > > >> twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this > showed > > >> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven > > >> discussions are in todays' world. > > >> > > >> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression > and > > >> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that > > >> underlay our discussions. > > >> > > >> avri > > >> > > >> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists > can > > >> correct or amplify this quick report. > > >> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt> report-140501>____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Anja Kovacs > > The Internet Democracy Project > > > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Fri May 2 05:47:27 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 06:47:27 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <536369AF.7010609@cafonso.ca> We will of course not stop tweeting now that the meeting is almost over... --c.a. On 05/02/2014 06:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Anja. > > Very disappointing to read the pig-headedness over participation of women. > > Don't tweet, use Chatham House rule... makes no sense, there's a live transcript (which has the USA as just saying "I AGREE CERTAINLY WITH THE DISTINGUISHED CLIENT FROM IRAN" ... oh, that's new :-)) > > Adam > > > > On May 2, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > >> Hi Adam and all, >> >> The governments that object to tweeting claim that their statements are taken out of context in the tweets. >> >> By way of background, though nobody came up to me to complain (I'm an observer in the meeting, and have been tweeting on and off), one of the tweets that was supposedly objected to is this one: >> >> Equal participation of women in Internet governance is ending up massive stumbling block in the #WGEC. Saudi Arabia can't agree to language >> >> As anyone who checks the transcript will see, we ended up negotiating endlessly on the language of that recommendation, as promoting "the full and equal participation" from women in Internet governance turned out to be too contentious a phrase - the fact that the phrase "the full and equal participation" is included in numerous HRC resolutions (and thus is "already agreed text" in the UN system) notwithstanding. I therefore cannot quite see how this tweet takes anything out of context. >> >> I didn't mention any government in the other two tweets I sent on this issue. >> >> Interestingly, it is not the first time that I hear governments object to live tweets from meetings. Such objections raise important questions about the expectations different stakeholder groups have of these processes. Clearly, some governments are not feeling particularly comfortable about the fact that their statements in meetings such as these are now shared real-time with the world on popular platforms, which goes against the diplomatic conventions they are used to. Seeing their repeated reminders in the same meetings that they are the representatives of the people, I find this discomfort interesting. >> >> For civil society, the question is of course whether we want to adapt to existing diplomatic conventions or whether we want to try to somewhat reframe the terms of these debates as they take place in a multistakeholder environment (and this question was raised by parts of the NETmundial process as well, I feel). It deserves a bit more thought how we can be most effective. >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 May 2014 13:16, Lea Kaspar wrote: >> Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, I think this accurately captures the state of play. >> >> One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over into other fora (ITU, WSIS review). >> >> Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, there are two likely options: >> 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR. >> 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data. >> >> Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for assessment (currently absent). >> >> Stay tuned. >> >> Lea >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" wrote: >>> >>> Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the meeting. Good luck today. >>> >>> About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the chair. >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed >>>> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a >>>> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. >>>> >>>> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the >>>> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of >>>> fundamental disagreement: >>>> >>>> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document >>>> >>>> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now >>>> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the gaps. >>>> >>>> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and >>>> needs further discussion. >>>> >>>> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially >>>> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: >>>> >>>> - among governments >>>> >>>> - among all stakeholders. >>>> >>>> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include >>>> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and women's >>>> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced >>>> Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: >>>> >>>> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the >>>> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments >>>> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held >>>> >>>> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all stakeholders. >>>> >>>> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went on >>>> as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some >>>> point in day 3. >>>> >>>> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced >>>> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these >>>> models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with >>>> some some arguing: >>>> >>>> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, and >>>> there seem to be some such points >>>> >>>> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. >>>> >>>> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only >>>> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would >>>> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the >>>> points they had just accepted. >>>> >>>> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" >>>> >>>> - a chair's report >>>> >>>> - a WG group >>>> >>>> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is >>>> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. >>>> >>>> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is >>>> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions >>>> >>>> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have >>>> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional >>>> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. There >>>> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: >>>> >>>> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more >>>> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve >>>> >>>> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure >>>> >>>> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of >>>> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. >>>> >>>> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using >>>> twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this showed >>>> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven >>>> discussions are in todays' world. >>>> >>>> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and >>>> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that >>>> underlay our discussions. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists can >>>> correct or amplify this quick report. >>>> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri May 2 06:52:12 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 11:52:12 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 2 In-Reply-To: <536369AF.7010609@cafonso.ca> References: <53633537.60708@acm.org> <49B5058F-A407-4155-905C-69D0EC02B248@glocom.ac.jp> <5A742CDE-968A-4041-A6B3-07155C93394B@global-partners.co.uk> <4BF52C4C-8B8F-408D-86C5-996FF3C50B1D@glocom.ac.jp> <536369AF.7010609@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > We will of course not stop tweeting now that the meeting is almost over... > > +1 to tweeting that is how people like us get an idea of realtime happening. So long as its an open meeting(and not against the ethics of the meeting) we should maximise the technology. IRAN has just made their reservation though ;) WHAT IS HIS ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO ANOTHER PERSON SPEAKING > ON BEHALF OF ONE BILLION 300 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. THEY DON'T HAVE > THE SAME VOICE. > AND THEY *SHOULD NOT TWITTER* AGAINST THAT ONE. SOMETHING WE CANNOT > CHANGE IS THIS TERM, WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. > THIS IS ETERNAL AND MUST REMAIN FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. IF YOU WANT > TO TAKE MULTISTAKEHOLDER HERE, TAKE IT, DON'T TALK ABOUT THE RESPECTIVE > ROLES. > Regards > --c.a. > > > On 05/02/2014 06:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Thanks Anja. >> >> Very disappointing to read the pig-headedness over participation of women. >> >> Don't tweet, use Chatham House rule... makes no sense, there's a live >> transcript (which has the >> USA as just saying "I AGREE CERTAINLY WITH THE DISTINGUISHED CLIENT FROM >> IRAN" ... oh, that's new :-)) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On May 2, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Hi Adam and all, >>> >>> The governments that object to tweeting claim that their statements are >>> taken out of context in the tweets. >>> >>> By way of background, though nobody came up to me to complain (I'm an >>> observer in the meeting, and have been tweeting on and off), one of the >>> tweets that was supposedly objected to is this one: >>> >>> Equal participation of women in Internet governance is ending up massive >>> stumbling block in the #WGEC. Saudi Arabia can't agree to language >>> >>> As anyone who checks the transcript will see, we ended up negotiating >>> endlessly on the language of that recommendation, as promoting "the full >>> and equal participation" from women in Internet governance turned out to be >>> too contentious a phrase - the fact that the phrase "the full and equal >>> participation" is included in numerous HRC resolutions (and thus is >>> "already agreed text" in the UN system) notwithstanding. I therefore cannot >>> quite see how this tweet takes anything out of context. >>> >>> I didn't mention any government in the other two tweets I sent on this >>> issue. >>> >>> Interestingly, it is not the first time that I hear governments object >>> to live tweets from meetings. Such objections raise important questions >>> about the expectations different stakeholder groups have of these >>> processes. Clearly, some governments are not feeling particularly >>> comfortable about the fact that their statements in meetings such as these >>> are now shared real-time with the world on popular platforms, which goes >>> against the diplomatic conventions they are used to. Seeing their repeated >>> reminders in the same meetings that they are the representatives of the >>> people, I find this discomfort interesting. >>> >>> For civil society, the question is of course whether we want to adapt to >>> existing diplomatic conventions or whether we want to try to somewhat >>> reframe the terms of these debates as they take place in a multistakeholder >>> environment (and this question was raised by parts of the NETmundial >>> process as well, I feel). It deserves a bit more thought how we can be most >>> effective. >>> >>> Best, >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2 May 2014 13:16, Lea Kaspar wrote: >>> Thanks for this excellent summary, Avri. As an observer in the meeting, >>> I think this accurately captures the state of play. >>> >>> One other discussion expected to happen today is whether or not the WGEC >>> should continue it's mandate beyond today's meeting. Some feel that the >>> mandate has not been completed because the gaps analysis (part of what the >>> Correspondence Group was meant to do) hasn't been finalised. There are also >>> strategic interests at play to avoid this discussion from spilling over >>> into other fora (ITU, WSIS review). >>> >>> Assuming that the gaps analysis becomes the focus of the extension, >>> there are two likely options: >>> 1. the gaps analysis is professionalised and outsourced through the CSTD >>> Secretariat, based on a more narrowly defined TOR. >>> 2. the WGEC itself analyses the gaps based on existing data. >>> >>> Having worked on the CG output myself, I would strongly recommend an >>> independent gaps analysis based on clearly defined benchmarks for >>> assessment (currently absent). >>> >>> Stay tuned. >>> >>> Lea >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 2 May 2014, at 08:31, "Adam Peake" wrote: >>>> >>>> Avri, thanks for the report, and having followed some of yesterdays >>>> discussions online, thank you *very* much for your interventions during the >>>> meeting. Good luck today. >>>> >>>> About your last point, tweets. The meeting is transcribed, we can see >>>> who is saying what. How is tweeting a problem? Perhaps clarify with the >>>> chair. >>>> >>>> Thanks again, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 2, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> It was a long day. We finally made it through all of the proposed >>>>> recommendations that group members had offered. We are at least half a >>>>> day or more behind our schedule for the meeting. >>>>> >>>>> We also had a discussion of the Correspondence group report. While the >>>>> report was appreciated by all, we developed yet another point of >>>>> fundamental disagreement: >>>>> >>>>> - This is marvelous work that should become a living document >>>>> >>>>> - This is a useful piece of work, but enough trying to understand, now >>>>> lets come to conclusions about new mechanisms and bodies to fill the >>>>> gaps. >>>>> >>>>> Discussions were robust, and some of the language remains bracketed and >>>>> needs further discussion. >>>>> >>>>> The fundamental oppositional themes remained as subthemes, especially >>>>> the scope of Enhanced Cooperation: >>>>> >>>>> - among governments >>>>> >>>>> - among all stakeholders. >>>>> >>>>> One of the longest discussions revolved around the need to include >>>>> discussions on issues related to marginalized peoples issues and >>>>> women's >>>>> participation in the Internet governance as part of Enhanced >>>>> Cooperation. The fundamental group-division fed into the discussion: >>>>> >>>>> - this discussion is a waste of time that keeps us from discussing the >>>>> real issue of Enhanced Cooperation - relationships between governments >>>>> and a new body wherein those discussions can be held >>>>> >>>>> - this a critical component of Enhanced Cooperation among all >>>>> stakeholders. >>>>> >>>>> Neither side in the discussion could believe that the discussion went >>>>> on >>>>> as long as it did. I am sure this discussion will resurface at some >>>>> point in day 3. >>>>> >>>>> As it was apparent that there are, at least two models of Enhanced >>>>> Cooperation, there had been discussion the first day of including these >>>>> models in the document. This discussion continued the second day with >>>>> some some arguing: >>>>> >>>>> - We should have a report on the things we could reach consensus on, >>>>> and >>>>> there seem to be some such points >>>>> >>>>> - we should discuss the various oppositional models. >>>>> >>>>> At one point one of the protagonists argued that they were only >>>>> accepting certain text because they expected a document that would >>>>> include a model that rejected the relevance of the discussion of the >>>>> points they had just accepted. >>>>> >>>>> We also did not manage to resolve the issues of whether we would have" >>>>> >>>>> - a chair's report >>>>> >>>>> - a WG group >>>>> >>>>> Today's meeting starts at 9am (I better start getting ready) and is >>>>> likely to go until 9pm again as was the case on day 2. >>>>> >>>>> A skeleton of the draft report was sent to the members and it is >>>>> attached for reference as is the text of the first day's discussions >>>>> >>>>> A point I want to make in this sketchy report, some governments have >>>>> begun the move to argue that the WGEC is only having these oppositional >>>>> problems because it is trying to be a multistakeholder discussion. >>>>> There >>>>> is every chance that a final oppositional impression is being set up: >>>>> >>>>> - realizing that a 16 year fundamental difference of opinion needs more >>>>> a few days of meetings spread over a year to resolve >>>>> >>>>> - the multistakeholder model is the root of all failure >>>>> >>>>> Of course I realize that within the group of civil society readers of >>>>> the sketchy report, we have people on both sides of this discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Finally there was a moment when an observer was reprimanded for using >>>>> twitter to say things that offended some WG members. To me, this >>>>> showed >>>>> how really out of touch the whole WSIS based Tunis Agenda driven >>>>> discussions are in todays' world. >>>>> >>>>> Or rather, how the opposition between the restriction of expression and >>>>> free expression are also one of the fundamental oppositions that >>>>> underlay our discussions. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> PS. Hopefully others who were in the room and who are on these lists >>>>> can >>>>> correct or amplify this quick report. >>>>> <30APR2014-WGEC-Geneva, Switzerland.txt>>>>> report-140501>______________________________________________ >>>>> ______________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gabrielle at article19.org Fri May 2 08:06:10 2014 From: gabrielle at article19.org (Gabrielle Guillemin) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:06:10 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text / A19 response Message-ID: Hi all + 1 on the thoughtful comments made by Anriette and Matthew on what we should learn from the process. It seems to me that we should take a constructive approach to this and look to what can be improved. On a separate note, here is our piece on Netmundial: http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/143/view/ Finally, just wanted to say a huge thanks to our selected reps in the various committees (don’t want to miss any names) for their fantastic work representing us in this debate, it was certainly no easy task, so thanks again and well done! Best, Gabrielle From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: 01 May 2014 16:16 To: Matthew Shears; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Cc: Adam Peake; Carlos A. Afonso Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement Agree with all this Matthew. We did not do too badly. And I think we also learnt that there are some issues which we need to learn about more, and around which we need to develop more comprehensive positions, e.g. intellectual property, and other pre-conditions which are vital to free expression and association such as the right to encryption and to anonymous speech and not making intermediaries liable for user behaviours. Even if these were not spelled out in the NetM document, we need to develop strategies to secure these. Anriette On 01/05/2014 16:04, Matthew Shears wrote: Just to move beyond the "who did what and why" during the somewhat chaotic last moments of NETmundial and focus on what we learned, here are a couple of thoughts: * The pre-day worked very well and we should take those structured approaches more often - there was a real sense of working together and accomplishment * We played a central and constructive role because we contributed fully to the entire process, from the consultations contributing as either platforms or as individual organizations, through the event itself - that consistent engagement is critical in my mind to our success and is a learning for other fora that we engage in * If there was a moment when our engagement broke down a little it was when the text went into the smaller drafting groups - we should have been more available and organized around those committees when they needed wording or assistance * We identified speakers who spoke to issues of concern for which we largely had a common view - an achievement and something we should consider in the future * We had text for many of the key issues - which was critical - but as others have noted, the specificity that was needed by the committees was sometimes lacking - a lesson for next time * The multi-stakeholder approach was largely practiced throughout, with the exception of the last moments where the primacy of governments became apparent. Whether this was a reality of this particular process or not, it reminds us of the importance of reaching out to all stakeholders to understand where their thinking is on critical issues. We should continue to push our positions of course but we also need to know where other stand on the same. We may never see eye to eye with other stakeholders on some/many issues but it is good to understand where they are so we are not as surprised as we were by the NETmundial end game in the future. * We may not get all that we want, but we can get a lot - as we did in Sao Paulo. And this is in part testament to the points above and how well civil society engaged and cooperated. My 2 centavos Matthew On 5/1/2014 9:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: And... On May 1, 2014, at 9:51 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Hi Niels, On 05/01/2014 08:10 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: Dear Carlos, On 04/30/2014 03:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand English, this is the paragraph on it: "UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely end-to-end regardless of the lawful content." This definition allows for charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. It is not a definition -- nobody had said that so far. The recommendation for a principle provides the basis without which your dreams (which are also ours, or at least mine) would not come true. Do you think we would be able to delve into such details in an attempt to build a pluralist consensus document? And this is why we mentioned in the Roadmap the issue is complex and merits further dialogue and recommendations. We kept asking for specific text. Something the we could work with in drafting. Asked on this list and others, asked at the CS meeting on 22nd. I think I even suggested: "Neutrality: The Internet should remain a neutral and open platform, free from discrimination, so as to encourage free expression, the free flow of information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship." Not great, but something to argue for. (and it might have been a lever to keep the other creator text out of the document?) We looked through the transcripts and all I remember seeing is general statements (we want to see NN mentioned, blah... and those were balanced by others who said there was no place for net neutrality in the documents). Sorry if I missed anything, but we needed text to work with, and needed support. Where we got help, it worked: thanks particularly to Robin, Stephanie, Avri. Anyway. A very enjoyable and rewarding process. There are a lot of positives in the documents. I'm very grateful to CS for asking me to join the EMC. Thank you, Adam In the Marco Civil, we also recognize the issue is not exhausted, this is why we agreed to insert the possibility of further regulation under the guidance of CGI.br and Anatel. This in itself was a major victory, as the transnational telcos (mostly European) who control the network market in Brazil did not want even the mention of CGI.br anywhere in the document. Sometimes I think some progressive civil society groups have slipped towards Aristotelian logic -- either we get all or nothing -- forgetting all about political tactics. Unfortunate. BTW, I would really like to see the list of orgs who signed (or agreed to) the statement. I find it hard to believe that 50-60 orgs were so naïve in grasping the relevance of the moment and the nature of the final document after participating in the event (I assume they all participated?). And I thank again Stephanie Perrin for understanding that relevance and nature. fraternal regards --c.a. So I am not sure it would fall under my definition of network neutrality. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Acting Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 2 08:58:47 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> Dear Parminder, To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. Please act immediately. Thank you, Adam >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. Tunis Agenda 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 2 09:42:37 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 15:42:37 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger today. Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal construct through which this human right is established is via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the right to democratic processes is established. I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to forsake it before a proven alternative is available. Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the various examples of totally non-democratic states here. I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 schrieb Adam Peake : > Dear Parminder, > > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > oppose paragraph 35. > > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > > Please act immediately. > > Thank you, > > Adam > > > >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > >>DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > >>RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > >>RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > >>TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > >>POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > >>AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > >>ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > >>PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > >>MAKING. > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > YOU. > >>CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > > Tunis Agenda > > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > technical and public policy issues and should involve all > stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > policies. > > From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu May 1 06:52:23 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 12:52:23 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> Message-ID: <53622767.3080206@wzb.eu> Hi Ian, the only cs people I could see against the light directed towards the stage during the closing ceremony where those who didn't get up when most most people in the room had risen and applauded process and/or outcome. Less than 30 minutes before the closing ceremony, both statement and process where about to collapse due to a few governments who weren't willing to support the principle section of the outcome document. These governments hadn't been part of the editing process and probably hadn't monitored it either. They looked at the changes being made to the draft document some hours before and simply said no to some of what they saw on the screen, or wanted text included that they didn't see on that screen. In this situation it occurred to me how very risky the process was that we had sketched out earlier that week. Board and committees simply hoped that the outcome would be legitimate and acceptable to the majority of attendees. While more and more government reps expressed their discont and the meeting was running over time, I tried to imagine what a failure of netmundial would mean for the future evolution of the multistakeholder process. For years to come, I thought, we would be stuck with the IG truism that one can have either multistakeholder and chairman reports or more specific outcomes BUT NOT BOTH. We would have faced an agonizing stalemate for a long time despite all the goodwill and efforts to push this fragile baby forward. If we had ended with yet another chairman's report, netmundial would have be interpreted by many as a confirmation of the limits of multistakeholder processes. I was so relieved when we achieved a compromise and prevented the process from failing! And this is why I found it pretty hard to listen to the cs statement and watch you all sitting their with your arms folded and not even a little smile on your faces. The only person who sensed the split between cs in the audience and cs on the stage was Anja. After some hesitation she got up. I felt like hugging her, and I wholeheartedly did after the closure. I guess what I want to say is that it a bit of expectation management among civil society wouldn't hurt. This includes putting outcomes such as the Sao Paulo statement into perspective while they are negotiated. Only a few years ago we were unable to get consensus for IGF main sessions focussing on human rights. Plus, is is still open if we will ever move beyond a chair man's report at the IGF. Recent reflections by cs people on netmundial move into this direction. jeanette Am 30.04.14 21:44, schrieb Ian Peter: > The Niels statement was drawn up quickly by a group of about 30 of us > sitting in the CS quarters of the conference hall after the changed text > was leaked showing the last minute changes after the text left the two > drafting committees. > > Some of us would have gone further. Some were considering a walk out. > The text was probably indicative of a more balanced approach given the > mood at the time. > > With a bit of distance from the disappointment at those changes, perhaps > many feel differently. But it was an honest attempt to capture the mood > at the time and I am personally glad civil society said something rather > than nothing. > > But with a bit of distance from the event perhaps many of us have other > thoughts. > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:31 PM > To: Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: Andrew Puddephatt ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 > outcome text open for endorsement > > > > > On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. >> > > > Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the > impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to > speak and who did they say they represented? > > Adam > > > >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt >> wrote: >> >>> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of >>> positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole >>> process. I can’t support this statement >>> >>> Andrew Puddephatt >>> Global Partners Digital >>> Andrew at gp-digital.org >>> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >>> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >>> >>> >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >>> To: "" >>> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome >>> text open for endorsement >>> >>> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text >>> was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society >>> representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever >>> from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >>> >>> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil >>> society response later. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 2 10:01:28 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 23:01:28 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. Rafik Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > today. > > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > construct through which this human right is established is via the > public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > right to democratic processes is established. > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > schrieb Adam Peake : > >> Dear Parminder, >> >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >> oppose paragraph 35. >> >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >> >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >> >> Please act immediately. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Adam >> >> >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>> MAKING. >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >> YOU. >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >> >> Tunis Agenda >> >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >> policies. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri May 2 10:11:00 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 23:11:00 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: Norbert thanks, however: On May 2, 2014, at 10:42 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > Correct. > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > today. > Absolutely not correct, follow the proceedings of the ongoing CSTD working group and it is very clear the positions of many governments have not changed since Geneva in 2003 -- allies in Parminder's position include Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. These days they even deny basic gender rights. > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > construct through which this human right is established is via the > public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > right to democratic processes is established. > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > He spoke against an agreed and very longstanding civil society position, one that was affirmed only last week. He should retract his statement. People who wish to represent civil society should not be siding with "totally non-democratic states" on such fundamental issues. Adam > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > schrieb Adam Peake : > >> Dear Parminder, >> >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >> oppose paragraph 35. >> >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >> >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >> >> Please act immediately. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Adam >> >> >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>> MAKING. >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >> YOU. >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >> >> Tunis Agenda >> >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >> policies. >> >> > From mahesh.uppal at gmail.com Fri May 2 10:36:08 2014 From: mahesh.uppal at gmail.com (Mahesh Uppal) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 20:06:08 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: The discuss about the roles of key actors in internet governance reminds me of a frequently used argument in favour of dismantling government monopolies in the telecom sector. It was argued -rightly in my opinion- that the "business of government was not business" and that governments must confine themselves to policy issues. I feel we also must consider a corollary to that, namely, that "business of business is not public policy". Yes, there are rogue governments that often flout human rights. It does not follow that business or indeed any other grouping can substitute for them. Mahesh On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Rafik wrote: > Hi Norbert, > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >> >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >> today. >> >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >> >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >> construct through which this human right is established is via the >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >> right to democratic processes is established. >> >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >> >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >> >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >> >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >> schrieb Adam Peake : >> >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>> oppose paragraph 35. >>> >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>> >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>> >>> Please act immediately. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>> MAKING. >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>> YOU. >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>> >>> Tunis Agenda >>> >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>> policies. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 -- mahesh.uppal at gmail.com | mobile +91-98100-42969 From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Fri May 2 10:53:25 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 09:53:25 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > People who wish to represent civil society should not be siding with "totally non-democratic states" on such fundamental issues. Agreed. Is it only me that finds it richly ironic that PJS is using an "equal-footing" platform to decry equal-footedness? rgds, McTim From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 2 11:25:15 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:25:15 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: <20140502172515.706c411a@quill> Rafik, you are attacking a straw-man position, which has nothing to do at all with my position or values or the proposal that I included a link to. I am very much in favor of open multistakeholder processes with full involvement of all interested parties, including the private sector, for the development of policy proposals, including coordination of proposals with the goal of minimizing problems when different countries choose to adopt different public policy options. In my view, the attempt should always be made to reach a full global multistakeholder consensus. This will not always succeed, but even if it doesn't succeed, much can be learned through participation in a well-run multistakeholder consensus process with participants of diverse backgrounds. Often the result of such a process will not be consensus but a much improved understanding of where the real problems are in terms of significantly conflicting interests, and what the benefits and drawbacks of different possible and justifiable policy choices are in regard to the legitimate interests of different stakeholder groups. These insights should then be provided to national parliaments so that the choice between different public policy possibilities, each justifiable and right from some perspective, will be made in a democratic manner, on the basis of the best possible information. In regard to your point about non-democratic states: They obviously have a totally broken governance system. They obviously violate the human rights of the people living there. But neither of those points should be allowed to stop the people living in parts of the world where the governments are to a significant degree democratic (like is the case for me) from being allowed to insist that we value democracy, and we don't want to lose it, even when the line between Internet governance and traditional areas of governance is becoming more and more blurred. Greetings, Norbert Rafik wrote: > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing > many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having > any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having > role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems > with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having > SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match > democratic values you are mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really > think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really > representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are > mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The > state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the > world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any > possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from > developing region to participate in such process , but at least I > have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the > marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts > giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are > defending cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > > > > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real > > danger today. > > > > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the > > legal construct through which this human right is established is > > via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the > > peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the > > document the right to democratic processes is established. > > > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want > > to forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract > > anything. > > > > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as > > those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > > schrieb Adam Peake : > > > >> Dear Parminder, > >> > >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration > >> of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary > >> in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > >> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week > >> in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > >> oppose paragraph 35. > >> > >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself > >> with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > >> > >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on > >> roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. > >> You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later > >> today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > >> > >> Please act immediately. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE > >>>> SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT > >>>> SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE > >>>> ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE > >>>> TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT > >>>> OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER > >>>> SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND > >>>> THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED > >>>> COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS > >>>> SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. > >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT > >> WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT > >> TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS > >> WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN > >> GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL > >> LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER > >> IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT > >> PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE > >> SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE > >> PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK > >> ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN > >> EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT > >> IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE > >> SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE > >> ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES > >> COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE > >> THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. > >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > >> > >> Tunis Agenda > >> > >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses > >> both technical and public policy issues and should involve all > >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the > >> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities > >> for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The > >> private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important > >> role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and > >> economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important > >> role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and > >> should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental > >> organizations have had, and should continue to have, a > >> facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public > >> policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and > >> should continue to have an important role in the development of > >> Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. > >> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 2 11:28:28 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 11:28:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM Message-ID: Dear colleagues, During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us have been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a password. http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ pass: bestbits Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look for Jeremy online to adopt those. I hope you can consider signing it. Thank you -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri May 2 11:51:44 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 17:51:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! See below but in short, here are the best parts: - "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG itself: " Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks" - "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! - and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them." This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy". No thanks! JC From McKinsey The topic of business wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. Interview transcript A new model for solving global problems There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and created goods and services. There were also no NGOs1 at Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily basis. And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. The role of companies as citizens The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government, civil society, and the private sector. This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on. But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an epidemic in the world today. Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them. Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > Hi Norbert, > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >> >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >> today. >> >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >> >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >> construct through which this human right is established is via the >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >> right to democratic processes is established. >> >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >> >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >> >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >> >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >> schrieb Adam Peake : >> >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>> oppose paragraph 35. >>> >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>> >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>> >>> Please act immediately. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>> MAKING. >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>> YOU. >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>> >>> Tunis Agenda >>> >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>> policies. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri May 2 12:05:04 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:05:04 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -1 I cannot understand the fact that BB contradicts a public statement made at Netmundial by publishing this text. I cannot understand that sentence To be truly multistakeholder is to not just admit, but to welcome and integrate those whose opinions differ from your own, and to give others time to understand and evolve their perspectives. We should welcome diverging opinions, to give others time to understand and evolve how right are the others? Who are the others(1)? and the others (2) I cannot understand this language We also need to understand the symbolic and policy impact of what happened in Sao Paulo. Who is that stupid that he/she needs to understand something different from his/her own judgement on what happened or didn't happen in SP? If CS had a long term commitment, it would with no doubt understand, that life is full of red line that cannot be overpassed. This is why CS should raise a stronger voice, as it did at the end of Netmundial. That was a clear message to other parties present at Netmundial. This statement seems like a call to funders: please keep funding us, we are nice people. No offense. Please come back. Well indeed let's go back to kindergarden policy. This is unfair and ridiculous on all accounts. Where is CS dignity in this kind of volte-face? Therefore it is a minus one for me. JC Le 2 mai 2014 à 17:28, Carolina Rossini a écrit : > > Dear colleagues, > > During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us have been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a password. > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ > pass: bestbits > > Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look for Jeremy online to adopt those. > > I hope you can consider signing it. > > Thank you > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu Fri May 2 12:04:45 2014 From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 13:04:45 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I am a bit confused. Maybe my confusion comes because, as I asked in the meeting in Bali, it is not clear what bestbits is. Is it a network of organizations? A platform for open discussions? etc. At the end of NetMundial a document called " Civil society closing statement at NETmundial 2014 " was distributed. My understanding was that it was our 'bestbits' "closing" statement. Then I read statements coming from many individual organizations. That, of course, is perfectly fine. And now I see there is another document distributed by Carolina, with a different tone and a different perspective, also in bestbits. The new title is Civil society statement: reflections on NETmundial So, just to understand clearly: Why is it necessary to issue a new bestbits document? Don´t you think that having too many documents with different views about NetMundial demonstrates the lack of consensus of civil society about the final output of NetMundial? Apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding these two documents. But I think the tone in each is entirely different, and since I signed the first one, it would be hard to sign the second one. The fact that there is no consensus is not necessarily a problem. However, it could be used by governments and others to stop listening to us because they could point out that we don't have a common understanding of critical issues. Why should we open the door to that? Best Eduardo Bertoni Eduardo On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us have > been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received > inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel > we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to > you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial > results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I > do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document > until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a > password. > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ > pass: bestbits > > Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look > for Jeremy online to adopt those. > > I hope you can consider signing it. > > Thank you > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri May 2 12:08:14 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:08:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> Message-ID: <20140502180814.209de0a6@quill> Adam Peake wrote: > He spoke against an agreed and very longstanding civil society > position, one that was affirmed only last week. Please provide a link or links with detailed information on 1) what you claim was affirmed last week, and on 2) though what process it was affirmed. Greetings, Norbert From ca at cafonso.ca Thu May 1 06:56:18 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 12:56:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <53622767.3080206@wzb.eu> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> <53622767.3080206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <63654079-52A5-4624-BEC1-7958688F1983@cafonso.ca> Great, dear Jean! --c.a. sent from a dumbphone > On 01/05/2014, at 12:52, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi Ian, > > the only cs people I could see against the light directed towards the stage during the closing ceremony where those who didn't get up when most most people in the room had risen and applauded process and/or outcome. > > Less than 30 minutes before the closing ceremony, both statement and process where about to collapse due to a few governments who weren't willing to support the principle section of the outcome document. These governments hadn't been part of the editing process and probably hadn't monitored it either. They looked at the changes being made to the draft document some hours before and simply said no to some of what they saw on the screen, or wanted text included that they didn't see on that screen. In this situation it occurred to me how very risky the process was that we had sketched out earlier that week. Board and committees simply hoped that the outcome would be legitimate and acceptable to the majority of attendees. > > While more and more government reps expressed their discont and the meeting was running over time, I tried to imagine what a failure of netmundial would mean for the future evolution of the multistakeholder process. For years to come, I thought, we would be stuck with the IG truism that one can have either multistakeholder and chairman reports or more specific outcomes BUT NOT BOTH. We would have faced an agonizing stalemate for a long time despite all the goodwill and efforts to push this fragile baby forward. If we had ended with yet another chairman's report, netmundial would have be interpreted by many as a confirmation of the limits of multistakeholder processes. > > I was so relieved when we achieved a compromise and prevented the process from failing! And this is why I found it pretty hard to listen to the cs statement and watch you all sitting their with your arms folded and not even a little smile on your faces. > The only person who sensed the split between cs in the audience and cs on the stage was Anja. After some hesitation she got up. I felt like hugging her, and I wholeheartedly did after the closure. > > I guess what I want to say is that it a bit of expectation management among civil society wouldn't hurt. This includes putting outcomes such as the Sao Paulo statement into perspective while they are negotiated. Only a few years ago we were unable to get consensus for IGF main sessions focussing on human rights. Plus, is is still open if we will ever move beyond a chair man's report at the IGF. Recent reflections by cs people on netmundial move into this direction. > > jeanette > > Am 30.04.14 21:44, schrieb Ian Peter: >> The Niels statement was drawn up quickly by a group of about 30 of us >> sitting in the CS quarters of the conference hall after the changed text >> was leaked showing the last minute changes after the text left the two >> drafting committees. >> >> Some of us would have gone further. Some were considering a walk out. >> The text was probably indicative of a more balanced approach given the >> mood at the time. >> >> With a bit of distance from the disappointment at those changes, perhaps >> many feel differently. But it was an honest attempt to capture the mood >> at the time and I am personally glad civil society said something rather >> than nothing. >> >> But with a bit of distance from the event perhaps many of us have other >> thoughts. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake >> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:31 PM >> To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Cc: Andrew Puddephatt ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 >> outcome text open for endorsement >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. >> >> >> Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the >> impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to >> speak and who did they say they represented? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of >>>> positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole >>>> process. I can’t support this statement >>>> >>>> Andrew Puddephatt >>>> Global Partners Digital >>>> Andrew at gp-digital.org >>>> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >>>> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >>>> To: "" >>>> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome >>>> text open for endorsement >>>> >>>> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text >>>> was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society >>>> representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever >>>> from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >>>> >>>> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil >>>> society response later. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri May 2 12:11:43 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 16:11:43 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> , Message-ID: <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being inter-networked across the Internet; not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at the table. A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be paying attention. It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory global Internet governance processes. The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct lesson. In my always humble opinion : ) Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM To: Rafik; Adam Peake Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC Subject: Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! See below but in short, here are the best parts: - "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG itself: " Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks" - "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! - and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them." This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy". No thanks! JC From McKinsey The topic of business wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. Interview transcript A new model for solving global problems There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and created goods and services. There were also no NGOs1 at Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily basis. And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. The role of companies as citizens The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government, civil society, and the private sector. This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on. But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an epidemic in the world today. Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them. Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : Hi Norbert, If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. Rafik Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow > a écrit : TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger today. Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal construct through which this human right is established is via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the right to democratic processes is established. I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to forsake it before a proven alternative is available. Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the various examples of totally non-democratic states here. I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 schrieb Adam Peake >: Dear Parminder, To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. Please act immediately. Thank you, Adam PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. Tunis Agenda 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 2 12:22:42 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:22:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I do not think it is a contradiction. It just mirrors different reflections by many who did not feel represented in the statement delivered at the end. BB is a platform, not a body or an organization. Not every statement is signed by every organization engaged in BB activities. That is how I see this and - if I understood correctly many of the discussions of this list and face to face meetings - that is how the majority of folks feels about it. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I am a bit confused. Maybe my confusion comes because, as I asked in the > meeting in Bali, it is not clear what bestbits is. Is it a network of > organizations? A platform for open discussions? etc. > > At the end of NetMundial a document called " > Civil society closing statement at NETmundial 2014 > " was distributed. My understanding was that it was our 'bestbits' > "closing" statement. Then I read statements coming from many individual > organizations. That, of course, is perfectly fine. And now I see there is > another document distributed by Carolina, with a different tone and a > different perspective, also in bestbits. The new title is > Civil society statement: reflections on NETmundial > > So, just to understand clearly: Why is it necessary to issue a new > bestbits document? Don´t you think that having too many documents with > different views about NetMundial demonstrates the lack of consensus of > civil society about the final output of NetMundial? > > Apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding these two documents. But I > think the tone in each is entirely different, and since I signed the first > one, it would be hard to sign the second one. > > The fact that there is no consensus is not necessarily a problem. However, > it could be used by governments and others to stop listening to us because > they could point out that we don't have a common understanding of critical > issues. Why should we open the door to that? > > Best > > Eduardo Bertoni > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us >> have been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received >> inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel >> we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to >> you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial >> results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I >> do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document >> until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a >> password. >> >> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ >> pass: bestbits >> >> Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look >> for Jeremy online to adopt those. >> >> I hope you can consider signing it. >> >> Thank you >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri May 2 12:58:42 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:58:42 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> , <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6351C35A-62A6-48B3-A0EC-EB676B9D9DCB@theglobaljournal.net> The take-away lessons of Netmundial are plenty. One of them is discord. Not concord. Thanks to MS. Thanks also for reminding us who 'owns' the Internet (...seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks...). We should be grateful to them for having the right to enjoy the interconnection of telcos. Opposing the private sector to make public policy on an equal footing with public authorities is a critical challenge. They might express their views, not decided. This is the business pandora box that you are trying to open. It must be exciting to give it a try. Businesses might try to corrupt the public sector, or play double games (one day at the State Department, next day at Verizon or Comcast, or...) then back to the USG. We know that both the private sector and the public sector have the power to abuse their position. Need examples? But in terms in public policy, this would mean the end of democracy. Some here understand that this IG debate sounds like the perfect case for going beyond democracy. See the Berggruen project, working hand in hand with the big digital rallying to give sense to their 'natural' power. Shocked by the trillions? Not at all. Shocked by the fact that this power is overwhelming public power and endangering the 'social contract'. See what it is? You talk XIX century. Read Road to Power by Historian Pr. Jo Guldi (Harvard/Brown) to get an idea of how bad was the British private sector trying to handle transportation over two centuries (with private toll road and private turnpike). It was such a disaster, that it became a necessity to give it back public authorities regulation and management. Now history tells us: beware of the private sector. We can change leaders in Democracy. Shareholders, sometimes, can change their leaders. Not always. It does not obviate democracy, it just denies it. giving it a seat at the private sector kindergarden is certainly a philanthropic attitude. Not a democratic one. JC (Do we alway need to stipulate that when we write we do it in our humble capacity? ) Le 2 mai 2014 à 18:11, Lee W McKnight a écrit : > Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being inter-networked across the Internet; not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. > > Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. > > How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. > > As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at the table. > > A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. > > It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) > > Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be paying attention. > > It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory global Internet governance processes. > > The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct lesson. > > In my always humble opinion : ) > > Lee > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM > To: Rafik; Adam Peake > Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > > McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! > > See below but in short, here are the best parts: > - "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) > - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG itself: " Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks" > - "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! > - and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them." > > This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. > > Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy". > > No thanks! > > JC > > > From McKinsey > > > The topic of business wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. > > Interview transcript > > A new model for solving global problems > There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. > > And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. > > In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? > > A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and created goods and services. > > There were also no NGOs1 at Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily basis. > > And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. > > The role of companies as citizens > The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. > > But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government, civil society, and the private sector. > > This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on. > > But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an epidemic in the world today. > > Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them. > > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > >> Hi Norbert, >> >> If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . >> >> With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. >> >> Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. >> >> Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >> >>> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >>> >>> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >>> today. >>> >>> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >>> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >>> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >>> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >>> >>> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >>> construct through which this human right is established is via the >>> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >>> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >>> right to democratic processes is established. >>> >>> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >>> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >>> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >>> >>> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >>> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >>> >>> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >>> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >>> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >>> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >>> >>> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >>> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >>> schrieb Adam Peake : >>> >>>> Dear Parminder, >>>> >>>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>>> oppose paragraph 35. >>>> >>>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>>> >>>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>>> >>>> Please act immediately. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>>> MAKING. >>>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>>> YOU. >>>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>>> >>>> Tunis Agenda >>>> >>>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>>> policies. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:01:53 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 13:01:53 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IANAtransition] english version of Marco Civil In-Reply-To: <5362fb70.49cf0e0a.350f.66baSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> References: <5362fb70.49cf0e0a.350f.66baSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: yes On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM, FSP4NET wrote: > At 21:04 01/05/2014, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> Please, find attached the english version of Marco Civil I have prepared. >> You may have gotten a version from me earlier this week, but I have >> reviewed it once again. >> > > Permission to reproduce it on web sites? > Quoting you as a translator? > Thank you. > > Regards > FSP4NET > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:15:50 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:15:50 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: The curious me wondering why we are now concerned about using the phrase "in their respective role and responsibility" when the same phrase was actually used in the final NETMundial document (ref: first paragraph of roadmap). Which I ofcourse remotely suggested that should be removed. I don't see how that statement from NETMundial does not mean the same thing. Perhaps I missed something? Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 2 May 2014 13:58, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis > that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this > position has not changed. As recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a > matter that unified civil society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. > > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil > society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support > this language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, > Saudi Arabia, among others. > > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and > responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do > so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the > Tunis Agenda also below. > > Please act immediately. > > Thank you, > > Adam > > > >>PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS > ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND > NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US > GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED > COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY > ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS > THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND > I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN > DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE > ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. > THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL > ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC > POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN > RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, > YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE > MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE > SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE > ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. > FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. > THANK YOU. > >>CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > > Tunis Agenda > > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and > relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect > it is recognized that: > a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the > sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > international Internet-related public policy issues. > b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important > role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > fields. > c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, > especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. > d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, > a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy > issues. > e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have > an important role in the development of Internet-related technical > standards and relevant policies. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:17:19 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:17:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601cf662a$60357750$20a065f0$@gmail.com> Carolina in the statement (and in the other statement as I recall) the terminology of “we as civil society” was used repeatedly either directly or as implied. Perhaps, given what you say below you might want to correct that (it seems a wee bit arrogant to my ears to be claiming to be speaking on behalf of all of civil society—I know for example that I, and my Community Informatics colleagues weren’t consulted… and I’m guessing that the other several billion or so folks who might identify themselves as CS weren’t consulted either. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:23 PM To: Eduardo Bertoni Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM I do not think it is a contradiction. It just mirrors different reflections by many who did not feel represented in the statement delivered at the end. BB is a platform, not a body or an organization. Not every statement is signed by every organization engaged in BB activities. That is how I see this and - if I understood correctly many of the discussions of this list and face to face meetings - that is how the majority of folks feels about it. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am a bit confused. Maybe my confusion comes because, as I asked in the meeting in Bali, it is not clear what bestbits is. Is it a network of organizations? A platform for open discussions? etc. At the end of NetMundial a document called " Civil society closing statement at NETmundial 2014 " was distributed. My understanding was that it was our 'bestbits' "closing" statement. Then I read statements coming from many individual organizations. That, of course, is perfectly fine. And now I see there is another document distributed by Carolina, with a different tone and a different perspective, also in bestbits. The new title is Civil society statement: reflections on NETmundial So, just to understand clearly: Why is it necessary to issue a new bestbits document? Don´t you think that having too many documents with different views about NetMundial demonstrates the lack of consensus of civil society about the final output of NetMundial? Apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding these two documents. But I think the tone in each is entirely different, and since I signed the first one, it would be hard to sign the second one. The fact that there is no consensus is not necessarily a problem. However, it could be used by governments and others to stop listening to us because they could point out that we don't have a common understanding of critical issues. Why should we open the door to that? Best Eduardo Bertoni On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Dear colleagues, During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us have been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a password. http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ pass: bestbits Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look for Jeremy online to adopt those. I hope you can consider signing it. Thank you -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 * carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:21:53 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 13:21:53 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM In-Reply-To: <000601cf662a$60357750$20a065f0$@gmail.com> References: <000601cf662a$60357750$20a065f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: no intention to be broadly representative and no understanding we represent the CS of world so, no arrogant intention here I hear your concern and I think you have a good point, so we can change the text to be "less arrogant" as you put I will consolidate the inputs until later today, and ask Jeremy to make the changes (since I do not have that access to BB platform) btw...the same critics regarding this new statement could be directed to the old statement. As they have been in another thread actually. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Carolina in the statement (and in the other statement as I recall) the > terminology of “we as civil society” was used repeatedly either directly > or as implied. > > > > Perhaps, given what you say below you might want to correct that (it seems > a wee bit arrogant to my ears to be claiming to be speaking on behalf of > all of civil society—I know for example that I, and my Community > Informatics colleagues weren’t consulted… and I’m guessing that the other > several billion or so folks who might identify themselves as CS weren’t > consulted either. > > M > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 5:23 PM > *To:* Eduardo Bertoni > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM > > > > I do not think it is a contradiction. It just mirrors different > reflections by many who did not feel represented in the statement delivered > at the end. BB is a platform, not a body or an organization. Not every > statement is signed by every organization engaged in BB activities. That is > how I see this and - if I understood correctly many of the discussions of > this list and face to face meetings - that is how the majority of folks > feels about it. > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Eduardo Bertoni > wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > I am a bit confused. Maybe my confusion comes because, as I asked in the > meeting in Bali, it is not clear what bestbits is. Is it a network of > organizations? A platform for open discussions? etc. > > > > At the end of NetMundial a document called " > Civil society closing statement at NETmundial 2014 > > " was distributed. My understanding was that it was our 'bestbits' > "closing" statement. Then I read statements coming from many individual > organizations. That, of course, is perfectly fine. And now I see there is > another document distributed by Carolina, with a different tone and a > different perspective, also in bestbits. The new title is > Civil society statement: reflections on NETmundial > > > > So, just to understand clearly: Why is it necessary to issue a new > bestbits document? Don´t you think that having too many documents with > different views about NetMundial demonstrates the lack of consensus of > civil society about the final output of NetMundial? > > > > Apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding these two documents. But I > think the tone in each is entirely different, and since I signed the first > one, it would be hard to sign the second one. > > > > The fact that there is no consensus is not necessarily a problem. However, > it could be used by governments and others to stop listening to us because > they could point out that we don't have a common understanding of critical > issues. Why should we open the door to that? > > > > Best > > > Eduardo Bertoni > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us have > been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received > inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel > we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to > you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial > results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I > do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document > until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a > password. > > > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ > > pass: bestbits > > > > Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look > for Jeremy online to adopt those. > > > > I hope you can consider signing it. > > > > Thank you > > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:22:33 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:22:33 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> , <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <000e01cf662b$1c2caaf0$548600d0$@gmail.com> For an interesting reply to your comments Lee see these by a consummate techie insider, who if you read to the end seems to be calling for the Internet to be treated as a public utility. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140426_rip_network_neutrality/ M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:12 PM To: Rafik; Adam Peake; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC Subject: RE: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being inter-networked across the Internet; not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at the table. A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be paying attention. It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory global Internet governance processes. The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct lesson. In my always humble opinion : ) Lee _____ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal Sent: Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM To: Rafik; Adam Peake Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC Subject: Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! See below but in short, here are the best parts: - "The Role of Companies as citizens" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG itself: " Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process (note by JCN: the public sector conducting policy making) and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks" - "And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! - and the final touch "Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them." This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of 'enhanced democracy". No thanks! JC From McKinsey The topic of business wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. Interview transcript A new model for solving global problems There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders and created goods and services. There were also no NGOs 1 at Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily basis. And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. The role of companies as citizens The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from government, civil society, and the private sector. This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on. But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an epidemic in the world today. Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and participate in them. Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : Hi Norbert, If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. Rafik Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger today. Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal construct through which this human right is established is via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the right to democratic processes is established. I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to forsake it before a proven alternative is available. Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the various examples of totally non-democratic states here. I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 schrieb Adam Peake : Dear Parminder, To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. Please act immediately. Thank you, Adam PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. Tunis Agenda 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Fri May 2 13:28:00 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 13:28:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM In-Reply-To: <000601cf662a$60357750$20a065f0$@gmail.com> References: <000601cf662a$60357750$20a065f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: This reminds me of a friend who asked me a couple of decades back what I was doing in my post-law-school work. “I represent computer-crime defendants,” I told him. His response: “What? All of them?" -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: michael gurstein > Reply-To: michael gurstein > Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 at 1:17 PM To: 'Carolina Rossini' >, 'Eduardo Bertoni' > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: RE: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM Carolina in the statement (and in the other statement as I recall) the terminology of “we as civil society” was used repeatedly either directly or as implied. Perhaps, given what you say below you might want to correct that (it seems a wee bit arrogant to my ears to be claiming to be speaking on behalf of all of civil society—I know for example that I, and my Community Informatics colleagues weren’t consulted… and I’m guessing that the other several billion or so folks who might identify themselves as CS weren’t consulted either. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:23 PM To: Eduardo Bertoni Cc: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM I do not think it is a contradiction. It just mirrors different reflections by many who did not feel represented in the statement delivered at the end. BB is a platform, not a body or an organization. Not every statement is signed by every organization engaged in BB activities. That is how I see this and - if I understood correctly many of the discussions of this list and face to face meetings - that is how the majority of folks feels about it. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Eduardo Bertoni > wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am a bit confused. Maybe my confusion comes because, as I asked in the meeting in Bali, it is not clear what bestbits is. Is it a network of organizations? A platform for open discussions? etc. At the end of NetMundial a document called " Civil society closing statement at NETmundial 2014 " was distributed. My understanding was that it was our 'bestbits' "closing" statement. Then I read statements coming from many individual organizations. That, of course, is perfectly fine. And now I see there is another document distributed by Carolina, with a different tone and a different perspective, also in bestbits. The new title is Civil society statement: reflections on NETmundial So, just to understand clearly: Why is it necessary to issue a new bestbits document? Don´t you think that having too many documents with different views about NetMundial demonstrates the lack of consensus of civil society about the final output of NetMundial? Apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding these two documents. But I think the tone in each is entirely different, and since I signed the first one, it would be hard to sign the second one. The fact that there is no consensus is not necessarily a problem. However, it could be used by governments and others to stop listening to us because they could point out that we don't have a common understanding of critical issues. Why should we open the door to that? Best Eduardo Bertoni On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: Dear colleagues, During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us have been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a password. http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ pass: bestbits Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look for Jeremy online to adopt those. I hope you can consider signing it. Thank you -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Carolina Rossini http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:35:24 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 23:05:24 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IANAtransition] english version of Marco Civil In-Reply-To: References: <5362fb70.49cf0e0a.350f.66baSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear Carolina Rossini I have posted this at page http://isocindiachennai.org/?p=1575 after uploading it to ScribD for ease of embedding, with due credits to you for creating the English version and have shared the blog post on facebook and Google+ as Carolina Rossini's English Translation of Marco Civil Hope this is alright. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > yes > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM, FSP4NET wrote: > >> At 21:04 01/05/2014, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> Please, find attached the english version of Marco Civil I have >>> prepared. You may have gotten a version from me earlier this week, but I >>> have reviewed it once again. >>> >> >> Permission to reproduce it on web sites? >> Quoting you as a translator? >> Thank you. >> >> Regards >> FSP4NET >> >> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Thu May 1 06:59:22 2014 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 12:59:22 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <5362290A.1070908@digitaldissidents.org> Hi Adam, This statement was developed with roughly 50-60 people from civil society after the final drafting session. I made it clear that I did not represent the whole of civil society, but a group of civil society organizations, so I do not think there are any representation issues. Let me know if you think there are. On the process: I looked for consensus via this lists and talking to people in person. The initial drafting session was with around 30 people, and then there were two more group meetings with 10-15 different people. Jointly we made text edits. The opportunity to speak was arranged by a group of organizations from Latin America. Let me know if you have any more questions. Best, Niels On 04/30/2014 01:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. >> > > > Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to speak and who did they say they represented? > > Adam > > > >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >>> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole process. I can’t support this statement >>> >>> Andrew Puddephatt >>> Global Partners Digital >>> Andrew at gp-digital.org >>> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >>> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >>> >>> >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >>> To: "" >>> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement >>> >>> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >>> >>> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society response later. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 551 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri May 2 13:44:22 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 18:44:22 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Honestly if you are saying this then I think we may have missed the advantage that NETMundial brought. For me I think NETMundial was an avenue where respective stakeholder made their concern known and also got an almost immediate response from the other stakeholder that has different view of the same subject. You cannot over emphasis benefits of such an environment; especially towards creating a widely acceptable language on various topics of discussion. I feel this was what that section was trying to address and I really don't view it as marketing words and even if they were marketing I think it will be towards getting other stakeholders to voice out their concerns with the aim of producing a roughly and widely acceptable statement. The Era of us writing a long statement to government about our concern and receiving a short response of "... we will discuss this" OR "... we will work on it" is over! We need 2-way communication on real-time basis in other to achieve actionable results! My few cents. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 2 May 2014 17:05, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > -1 > > I cannot understand the fact that BB contradicts a public statement made > at Netmundial by publishing this text. > > I cannot understand that sentence > To be truly multistakeholder is to not just admit, but to welcome and > integrate those whose opinions differ from your own, and to give others > time to understand and evolve their perspectives. > We should welcome diverging opinions, to give others time to understand > and evolve how right are the others? Who are the others(1)? and the others > (2) > > I cannot understand this language > We also need to understand the symbolic and policy impact of what happened > in Sao Paulo. > Who is that stupid that he/she needs to understand something different > from his/her own judgement on what happened or didn't happen in SP? > > If CS had a long term commitment, it would with no doubt understand, that > life is full of red line that cannot be overpassed. This is why CS should > raise a stronger voice, as it did at the end of Netmundial. That was a > clear message to other parties present at Netmundial. > > This statement seems like a call to funders: *please keep funding us, we > are nice people. No offense. Please come back*. Well indeed let's go back > to kindergarden policy. > > This is unfair and ridiculous on all accounts. Where is CS dignity in this > kind of volte-face? > > Therefore it is a minus one for me. > > JC > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 17:28, Carolina Rossini a écrit : > > > Dear colleagues, > > During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us have > been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received > inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel > we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to > you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial > results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I > do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document > until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a > password. > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ > pass: bestbits > > Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look > for Jeremy online to adopt those. > > I hope you can consider signing it. > > Thank you > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri May 2 16:02:06 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 01:32:06 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5363F9BE.1080003@itforchange.net> Dear Adam First of thanks for quoting my intervention in full, which in fact answers your question. I have clearly described in my intervention why and in which sense do I see the respective role of different stakeholders. And I dont think you would have heard it first time from me that I thoroughly oppose big business having a similar role as governments in terms of public policy decision making. Not only is this the position of my organisation, it is the position of many networks of large numbers of civil society organisations that I work with. Now that I have answered your question - and I am ready to give any further answers or clarifications as well - would you also make your own position clear about this issue. Do you see business having a similar or equal role as governments in public policy decision making? After I get the answer to this question, I will explore, as you have with regard to me, which constituencies does your position get support from or represent. Thanks in advance. parminder On Friday 02 May 2014 06:28 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we oppose paragraph 35. > > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > > Please act immediately. > > Thank you, > > Adam > > >>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. > THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. >>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > Tunis Agenda > > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: > a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. > b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields. > c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. > d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. > e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Fri May 2 16:27:14 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:27:14 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM In-Reply-To: References: <000601cf662a$60357750$20a065f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8F42F62B-9F96-42B8-B5FC-577B6322B24C@cafonso.ca> Godwin, your friend is not very good at English. "Computer-crime defendants" without a modifier means an indeterminate number of them, not all of them... So you were probably right. ;) [] fraterno --c.a. sent from a dumbphone > On 02/05/2014, at 19:28, "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" wrote: > > > This reminds me of a friend who asked me a couple of decades back what I was doing in my post-law-school work. “I represent computer-crime defendants,” I told him. His response: “What? All of them?" > -- > Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 > Skype mnemonic1026 > Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA > > INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. > www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews > > From: michael gurstein > Reply-To: michael gurstein > Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 at 1:17 PM > To: 'Carolina Rossini' , 'Eduardo Bertoni' > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: RE: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM > > Carolina in the statement (and in the other statement as I recall) the terminology of “we as civil society” was used repeatedly either directly or as implied. > > Perhaps, given what you say below you might want to correct that (it seems a wee bit arrogant to my ears to be claiming to be speaking on behalf of all of civil society—I know for example that I, and my Community Informatics colleagues weren’t consulted… and I’m guessing that the other several billion or so folks who might identify themselves as CS weren’t consulted either. > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:23 PM > To: Eduardo Bertoni > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM > > I do not think it is a contradiction. It just mirrors different reflections by many who did not feel represented in the statement delivered at the end. BB is a platform, not a body or an organization. Not every statement is signed by every organization engaged in BB activities. That is how I see this and - if I understood correctly many of the discussions of this list and face to face meetings - that is how the majority of folks feels about it. > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I am a bit confused. Maybe my confusion comes because, as I asked in the meeting in Bali, it is not clear what bestbits is. Is it a network of organizations? A platform for open discussions? etc. > > At the end of NetMundial a document called " > Civil society closing statement at NETmundial 2014 > > " was distributed. My understanding was that it was our 'bestbits' "closing" statement. Then I read statements coming from many individual organizations. That, of course, is perfectly fine. And now I see there is another document distributed by Carolina, with a different tone and a different perspective, also in bestbits. The new title is > Civil society statement: reflections on NETmundial > > > So, just to understand clearly: Why is it necessary to issue a new bestbits document? Don´t you think that having too many documents with different views about NetMundial demonstrates the lack of consensus of civil society about the final output of NetMundial? > > Apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding these two documents. But I think the tone in each is entirely different, and since I signed the first one, it would be hard to sign the second one. > > The fact that there is no consensus is not necessarily a problem. However, it could be used by governments and others to stop listening to us because they could point out that we don't have a common understanding of critical issues. Why should we open the door to that? > > Best > > Eduardo Bertoni > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us have been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a password. > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ > pass: bestbits > > Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look for Jeremy online to adopt those. > > I hope you can consider signing it. > > Thank you > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > Click here to report this email as spam. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri May 2 16:29:20 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 01:59:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> , <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <53640020.9070801@itforchange.net> On Friday 02 May 2014 09:41 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance > Involvement? well, no. Can you point to where did anyone oppose their 'involvement' in Internet governance. Lee, even if we may have different views, may I request that we try and represent other people's positions fairly and honestly? The opposition is to 'equal' role' in 'public policy' 'decision making'..... Each element is separately highlighted so that you miss none... And I think I would have done this - highlighting all these elements - at least 25 times earlier on these lists, if not more. > seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being > inter-networked across the Internet; > So, since drug companies make all the medicine, they should have an 'equal role' in health/ drug related 'public policy making'? Please be explicit in your response. Such examples can be given in practically all sectors... As Mahesh said, since 'production/ business' is not the business of governments that should not mean that regulating business is also not their business.. That precisely is their business. You would have heard the term regulatory capture - that is what is it to have (the regulated) businesses given an equal role in relevant public policy making. > not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of > -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. > > > Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th > century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and > two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. > > > How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens > rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just > silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder > engagement. > > > As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, > citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and > businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- > lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have > seats at the table. > Big business as citizens, well!! Indian law does not recognise business as citizens... I know lately US supreme court have shown the tendency towards such a perversion, like in the ruling on corporate financing of elections, but I know that this judgement is widely opposed by civil society even within the US...It surprises me therefore that you are expressing such a view rather easily.. I dont agree that businesses are citizens - national or global - and have citizen rights, nor does all the civil society groups that I work with, and I can assure you that, at least in developing countries, they are the overwhelming majority (i know it is so in developed countries as well). I think we need to figure out our basic political positions and bearings here, in our internal civil society discourses, before we begin raising banners about who represents civil society interests and who does not. parminder > > A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. > > > It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough > China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. > (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) > > > Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay > attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through > the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses > would not be paying attention. > > > It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory > global Internet governance processes. > > > The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are > playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is > the correct lesson. > > > In my always humble opinion : ) > > > Lee > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > on behalf of Jean-Christophe > NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > *Sent:* Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM > *To:* Rafik; Adam Peake > *Cc:* Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working > group on enhanced cooperation > McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives > to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! > > See below but in short, here are the best parts: > - "*The Role of Companies as citizens*" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) > - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than > the IG itself: " *Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process* (note by > JCN: /the public sector conducting policy making)/ *and start to bring > together new partnerships, new multistakeholder networks*" > - "*And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so > on*": Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! > - and the final touch "*Because of the growing power of the digital > revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and > be full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that > they understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global > solution networks—and participate in them*." > > This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a > political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision > makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and > participation. > > Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private > sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new > partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting > all over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the > private sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some > sort of 'enhanced democracy". > > No thanks! > > JC > > > From McKinsey > > > *The topic of business* wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods > Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how > the international monetary and financial system would operate in the > wake of World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik > Kirkland, author and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is > different—and why business must play a central role in solving global > problems. An edited transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. > > > Interview transcript > > > A new model for solving global problems > > There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve > problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And > for 70 years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, > the model has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, > state-based institutions, or through some kind of direct action to > solve problems. > > And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have > are not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard > to solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new > factors: one of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping > transaction and collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s > leading to deep changes in the architecture and structure of the firm > and of how we orchestrate capability to innovate, to create goods and > services, and so on. > > In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to > create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get > capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we > disaggregate that process and start to bring together new > partnerships, new multistakeholder networks? > > A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new > “pillars of society,” in addition to government. There were no > corporations at Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as > being pillars of society. Companies were just these things that made > money for shareholders and created goods and services. > > There were also no NGOs^1 > at > Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the > world in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming > together into something that’s very, very powerful. They’re > multistakeholder networks, I call them global solution networks. > They’re engaging tens of thousands of organizations—companies, > governments, civil society—and tens of millions of people on a daily > basis. > > And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every > problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities > to address some of the big challenges facing the global community. > > > The role of companies as citizens > > The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and > the smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this > out. There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for > function and we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. > States will be around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to > cooperate together. And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. > > But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the > big climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going > to be a true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation > from government, civil society, and the private sector. > > This brings about some really big changes for business and how we > think about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in > ways that were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? > You tried maybe to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But > increasingly, you’ve got to get good because of transparency—you’re > going to get naked, and you’ve got to be buff. And then companies also > gave money through philanthropy and so on. > > But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil > society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is > critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s > failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic > development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment > is an epidemic in the world today. > > Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have > growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in > society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise > of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and > participate in them. > > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > >> Hi Norbert, >> >> If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing >> many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having >> any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having >> role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems >> with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having >> SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match >> democratic values you are mentioning . >> >> With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really >> think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really >> representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are >> mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The >> state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the >> world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any >> possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. >> >> Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from >> developing region to participate in such process , but at least I >> have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the >> marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts >> giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. >> >> Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are >> defending cannot be improved at all. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow > > a écrit : >> >>> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >>> >>> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >>> today. >>> >>> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >>> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >>> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >>> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >>> >>> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >>> construct through which this human right is established is via the >>> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >>> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >>> right to democratic processes is established. >>> >>> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >>> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >>> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >>> >>> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >>> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >>> >>> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >>> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >>> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >>> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >>> >>> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >>> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >>> schrieb Adam Peake >: >>> >>>> Dear Parminder, >>>> >>>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>>> oppose paragraph 35. >>>> >>>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>>> >>>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>>> >>>> Please act immediately. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>>> MAKING. >>>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>>> YOU. >>>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>>> >>>> Tunis Agenda >>>> >>>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>>> policies. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri May 2 16:57:23 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 02:27:23 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <53640020.9070801@itforchange.net> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> <53640020.9070801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Your position is valid in a predominantly multilateral environment as the ITU, where there are limits to Civil Society participation, in the absence of which balance does not prevail, and in the absence of balance, proximity of Business with Government is unhealthy. But if you seek to exclude Business from Pubic Policy, then the entire concept of multi-stakeholder governance is weakened. The basic idea of multi-stakeholder model is that each stakeholder group brings to the table, transparently, its own position representing its own best interests, which are balanced by the positions of other stakeholder groups. Your position indirectly reflects the views of our own Government, as that of many other Governments, that '*you are free to provide inputs, but we decide; Your role stops with participation (you will be heard), but you will have no role in framing the policy' *Single Quotes here does not imply exact wording of the position. The wording is my own, but roughly reflect the views of some in Government who I have occasion to talk to. If this is not the position of Indian Government, I would be happy to retract what I have said here :) By seeking to exclude Business, with the claim that it is "position of many networks of large numbers of civil society organisations" that you work with [in India?], your views are aligned with the views of Government, and undermines the entire idea of multi-stakeholder model. Perhaps you could announce that you will henceforth wear the Government Hat, then you are free to work towards multilateral model. And for now, I am entirely with Adam's demand that you should withdraw your comment. Thank you Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:59 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 02 May 2014 09:41 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance > > > Involvement? well, no. Can you point to where did anyone oppose their > 'involvement' in Internet governance. Lee, even if we may have different > views, may I request that we try and represent other people's positions > fairly and honestly? The opposition is to 'equal' role' in 'public policy' > 'decision making'..... Each element is separately highlighted so that you > miss none... And I think I would have done this - highlighting all these > elements - at least 25 times earlier on these lists, if not more. > > > seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being > inter-networked across the Internet; > > > So, since drug companies make all the medicine, they should have an 'equal > role' in health/ drug related 'public policy making'? Please be explicit in > your response. Such examples can be given in practically all sectors... As > Mahesh said, since 'production/ business' is not the business of > governments that should not mean that regulating business is also not their > business.. That precisely is their business. You would have heard the term > regulatory capture - that is what is it to have (the regulated) businesses > given an equal role in relevant public policy making. > > > not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- > techies who keep the whole thing afloat. > > > Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th > century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way > revenue splits; it's just not happening now. > > > How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights > domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to > think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. > > > As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, > citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and > businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots > of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at > the table. > > > Big business as citizens, well!! Indian law does not recognise business as > citizens... I know lately US supreme court have shown the tendency towards > such a perversion, like in the ruling on corporate financing of elections, > but I know that this judgement is widely opposed by civil society even > within the US...It surprises me therefore that you are expressing such a > view rather easily.. > > I dont agree that businesses are citizens - national or global - and > have citizen rights, nor does all the civil society groups that I work > with, and I can assure you that, at least in developing countries, they are > the overwhelming majority (i know it is so in developed countries as well). > > I think we need to figure out our basic political positions and bearings > here, in our internal civil society discourses, before we begin raising > banners about who represents civil society interests and who does not. > > parminder > > > A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. > > > It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough > China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. > (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) > > > Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention > to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global > economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be > paying attention. > > > It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory > global Internet governance processes. > > > The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing > - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct > lesson. > > > In my always humble opinion : ) > > > Lee > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > on behalf of Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal > > *Sent:* Friday, May 2, 2014 11:51 AM > *To:* Rafik; Adam Peake > *Cc:* Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group > on enhanced cooperation > > McKinsey supports the idea of a next best stage of democracy and gives > to MS its blessings. You are in good company!!! > > See below but in short, here are the best parts: > - "*The Role of Companies as citizens*" (NEW DEMOCRACY! ) > - When we say that what is happening in IG threatens much more than the IG > itself: " *Why couldn’t we disaggregate that process* (note by JCN: *the > public sector conducting policy making)* *and start to bring together new > partnerships, new multistakeholder networks*" > - "*And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so on*": > Ahah guys, there is some money to be given to CS here!!! > - and the final touch "*Because of the growing power of the digital > revolution, companies have growing power, and they need to step up and be > full participants in society, which is why it’s so important that they > understand the rise of these new multistakeholder networks—global solution > networks—and participate in them*." > > This is why MS is a danger to democracy. It pretends to replace a > political system, and the citizens rights to be the ultimate decision > makers - at least in democracies - thanks to their vote, and participation. > > Think of all the niceties citizen had to fight against the private > sector. We should just trust the private sector, thanks to new > partnerships? We will end up with thousand of Erin Brokovich fighting all > over the places, thanks to MS and its religious belief that the private > sector, co-decision maker in public policy will deliver some sort of > 'enhanced democracy". > > No thanks! > > JC > > > From McKinsey > > > *The topic of business* wasn’t on the table at the Bretton Woods > Conference 70 years ago, when world leaders convened to determine how the > international monetary and financial system would operate in the wake of > World War II. In this video interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, author > and consultant Don Tapscott explains why today is different—and why > business must play a central role in solving global problems. An edited > transcript of Tapscott’s remarks follows. > Interview transcript A new model for solving global problems > > There’s a fundamental change that’s underway in the way that we solve > problems, cooperate, and govern ourselves on this little planet. And for 70 > years, actually 70 years, dating back to 1944 in Bretton Woods, the model > has been that states cooperate together through diplomacy, state-based > institutions, or through some kind of direct action to solve problems. > > And if you look at the world today, many of the problems that we have are > not only stalled, they’re getting worse. So are they just too hard to > solve, or is our model wrong? Well, enter a whole bunch of new factors: one > of them is technology, and that’s radically dropping transaction and > collaboration costs. In the private sector, it’s leading to deep changes in > the architecture and structure of the firm and of how we orchestrate > capability to innovate, to create goods and services, and so on. > > In the public sector, it’s changing the way that we get capability to > create public value. Why wouldn’t that affect the way that we get > capability to solve the problems in the world? Why couldn’t we disaggregate > that process and start to bring together new partnerships, new > multistakeholder networks? > > A second thing that’s happening is we’ve got the rise of the new “pillars > of society,” in addition to government. There were no corporations at > Bretton Woods in 1944, because they weren’t viewed as being pillars of > society. Companies were just these things that made money for shareholders > and created goods and services. > > There were also no NGOs1 at > Bretton Woods, because there weren’t any. There were 50 NGOs in the world > in 1944. Now we’ve got these new forces, and they’re coming together into > something that’s very, very powerful. They’re multistakeholder networks, I > call them global solution networks. They’re engaging tens of thousands of > organizations—companies, governments, civil society—and tens of millions of > people on a daily basis. > > And they’re becoming material in the world. They’re attacking every > problem that we have. And they’re creating wonderful new opportunities to > address some of the big challenges facing the global community. > The role of companies as citizens > > The existing institutions are being challenged by this new model, and the > smart ones are embracing it. So the UN is starting to figure this out. > There are a lot of people who say the UN is no longer fit for function and > we should get rid of it and so on. I disagree with that. States will be > around for the foreseeable future, and we need them to cooperate together. > And the UN is a key vehicle for that to occur. > > But the UN is beginning to embrace the multistakeholder model. And the big > climate-change conference that’s coming up in September is going to be a > true multistakeholder initiative with strong representation from > government, civil society, and the private sector. > > This brings about some really big changes for business and how we think > about business in the world. Corporations can now contribute in ways that > were previously not possible. In the past, what did you do? You tried maybe > to be a good company, although lots didn’t. But increasingly, you’ve got to > get good because of transparency—you’re going to get naked, and you’ve got > to be buff. And then companies also gave money through philanthropy and so > on. > > But now companies can be equal partners with governments and the civil > society in bringing about change in the world, and this of course is > critical to business because business can’t succeed in a world that’s > failing. We need to have global prosperity. We need to have economic > development. We need to solve the problem of jobs. Youth unemployment is an > epidemic in the world today. > > Because of the growing power of the digital revolution, companies have > growing power, and they need to step up and be full participants in > society, which is why it’s so important that they understand the rise of > these new multistakeholder networks—global solution networks—and > participate in them. > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > > Hi Norbert, > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many > times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A > position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I > guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector > involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, > preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are > mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think > that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian > citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of > people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non > democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they > will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against > their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing > region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to > not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , > I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments > than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending > cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > > > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > > today. > > > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > > construct through which this human right is established is via the > > public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > > have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > > right to democratic processes is established. > > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > > forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > > > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > > proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > > schrieb Adam Peake : > > > Dear Parminder, > > > To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > > paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > > Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > > Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > > knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > > Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > > oppose paragraph 35. > > > So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > > civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > > should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > > business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > > > Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > > and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > > time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > > Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > > > Please act immediately. > > > Thank you, > > > Adam > > > > PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > > DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > > RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > > RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > > TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > > POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > > AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > > ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > > PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > > MAKING. > > IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > > IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > > ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > > HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > > ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > > REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > > MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > > EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > > IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > > REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > > PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > > DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > > DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > > BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > > INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > > THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > > YOU. > > CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > > > Tunis Agenda > > > 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > > technical and public policy issues and should involve all > > stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > > organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > > authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > > right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > > international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > > sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > > development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > > fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > > Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > > to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > > should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > > Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > > have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > > development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > > policies. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 2 20:32:22 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 20:32:22 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IANAtransition] english version of Marco Civil In-Reply-To: References: <5362fb70.49cf0e0a.350f.66baSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> Message-ID: :-) On May 2, 2014 1:35 PM, "Sivasubramanian M" wrote: > Dear Carolina Rossini > > > I have posted this at page http://isocindiachennai.org/?p=1575 after > uploading it to ScribD for ease of embedding, with due credits to you for > creating the English version and have shared the blog post on facebook and > Google+ as Carolina Rossini's English Translation of Marco Civil > > Hope this is alright. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> yes >> >> >> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:56 PM, FSP4NET wrote: >> >>> At 21:04 01/05/2014, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>> >>>> Dear colleagues, >>>> Please, find attached the english version of Marco Civil I have >>>> prepared. You may have gotten a version from me earlier this week, but I >>>> have reviewed it once again. >>>> >>> >>> Permission to reproduce it on web sites? >>> Quoting you as a translator? >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Regards >>> FSP4NET >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 2 23:16:43 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 12:16:43 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20140502172515.706c411a@quill> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <20140502172515.706c411a@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, Thanks for the response, Rafik, you are attacking a straw-man position, which has nothing to do > at all with my position or values or the proposal that I included a > link to. > > I was not judging you, that is not my goal. > I am very much in favor of open multistakeholder processes with full > involvement of all interested parties, including the private sector, > for the development of policy proposals, including coordination of > proposals with the goal of minimizing problems when different > countries choose to adopt different public policy options. > good to hear that you are in support of multistaekholder process, that was not indicated in your first message. > > In my view, the attempt should always be made to reach a full global > multistakeholder consensus. This will not always succeed, but even if > it doesn't succeed, much can be learned through participation in a > well-run multistakeholder consensus process with participants of > diverse backgrounds. Often the result of such a process will not be > consensus but a much improved understanding of where the real problems > are in terms of significantly conflicting interests, and what the > benefits and drawbacks of different possible and justifiable policy > choices are in regard to the legitimate interests of different > stakeholder groups. These insights should then be provided to national > parliaments so that the choice between different public policy > possibilities, each justifiable and right from some perspective, will > be made in a democratic manner, on the basis of the best possible > information. > > again good to see your explanation for supporting the multistakeholder model with such level of details. I responded to your when you were defending the state based model and giving privileges to governments even when you recognise the drawbacks. In regard to your point about non-democratic states: They obviously > have a totally broken governance system. They obviously violate the > human rights of the people living there. But neither of those points > should be allowed to stop the people living in parts of the world where > the governments are to a significant degree democratic (like is the case > for me) from being allowed to insist that we value democracy, and > we don't want to lose it, even when the line between Internet > governance and traditional areas of governance is becoming more and > more blurred. > so you don't propose any alternatives for those under authoritarian regimes and want to keep a system silencing them because it may work for you as swiss citizen ? how can this embed the democracy values you are defending? Rafik > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Rafik wrote: > > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing > > many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having > > any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having > > role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems > > with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having > > SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match > > democratic values you are mentioning . > > > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really > > think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really > > representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are > > mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The > > state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the > > world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any > > possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from > > developing region to participate in such process , but at least I > > have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the > > marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts > > giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are > > defending cannot be improved at all. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > > > TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > > > > > > It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real > > > danger today. > > > > > > Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > > > designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > > > processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > > > the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > > > > > > In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the > > > legal construct through which this human right is established is > > > via the public policy role of states: First it is declared that the > > > peoples have a right to self-determination, and later in the > > > document the right to democratic processes is established. > > > > > > I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > > > model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want > > > to forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > > > > > > Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > > > From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract > > > anything. > > > > > > I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > > > every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > > > states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > > > various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > > > > > > I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as > > > those proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > > > schrieb Adam Peake : > > > > > >> Dear Parminder, > > >> > > >> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > > >> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration > > >> of Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary > > >> in Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > > >> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week > > >> in Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > > >> oppose paragraph 35. > > >> > > >> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > > >> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > > >> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself > > >> with business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > > >> > > >> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on > > >> roles and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. > > >> You have time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later > > >> today. Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > > >> > > >> Please act immediately. > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> > > >> Adam > > >> > > >> > > >>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE > > >>>> SAME DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT > > >>>> SHOULD BE RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE > > >>>> ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE > > >>>> TUNIS AGENDA TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT > > >>>> OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER > > >>>> SOCIAL ENTERPRISES AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND > > >>>> THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED > > >>>> COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS > > >>>> SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. > > >> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT > > >> WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT > > >> TO ONE ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS > > >> WOULD HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN > > >> GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL > > >> LEVEL. THERE IS A REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER > > >> IN THE SECOND MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT > > >> PEOPLE ASKING FOR EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE > > >> SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE > > >> PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK > > >> ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN > > >> EQUAL FOOTING OF DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT > > >> IS THIS PART OF DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE > > >> SAID THIS EARLIER. BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE > > >> ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES > > >> COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE > > >> THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK YOU. > > >>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > > >> > > >> Tunis Agenda > > >> > > >> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses > > >> both technical and public policy issues and should involve all > > >> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > > >> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > > >> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the > > >> sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities > > >> for international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The > > >> private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important > > >> role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and > > >> economic fields. c) Civil society has also played an important > > >> role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and > > >> should continue to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental > > >> organizations have had, and should continue to have, a > > >> facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public > > >> policy issues. e) International organizations have also had and > > >> should continue to have an important role in the development of > > >> Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri May 2 23:43:33 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 12:43:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Cher Jean-Christophe, honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email: - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me. - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread. - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them. - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. Merci et bon vent. Best, Rafik ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here verbatim : "no kidding!" 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias < jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com>: > If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though > final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a > bit surprised with your email to Norbert. > > Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that > are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, > openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, > innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and > their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current > MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No > kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is > balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or > governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very > serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. > > Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? > > I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the > different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, > let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years > of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these > visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that > this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other > parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people > having a free word. > > Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and > defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of > IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach > sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has > changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS > model. > > You have the floor on this. > > JC > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > > > Hi Norbert, > > > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing > many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any > role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at > all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private > sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big > corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values > you are mentioning . > > > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think > that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian > citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of > people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non > democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they > will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against > their policies. > > > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing > region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to > not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , > I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments > than their own citizens. > > > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending > cannot be improved at all. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > >> > >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > >> today. > >> > >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > >> > >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > >> construct through which this human right is established is via the > >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > >> right to democratic processes is established. > >> > >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > >> > >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > >> > >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > >> > >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > >> schrieb Adam Peake : > >> > >>> Dear Parminder, > >>> > >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > >>> oppose paragraph 35. > >>> > >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > >>> > >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > >>> > >>> Please act immediately. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > >>>>> MAKING. > >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > >>> YOU. > >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > >>> > >>> Tunis Agenda > >>> > >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all > >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > >>> policies. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat May 3 01:44:59 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 06:44:59 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM In-Reply-To: <8F42F62B-9F96-42B8-B5FC-577B6322B24C@cafonso.ca> References: <000601cf662a$60357750$20a065f0$@gmail.com> <8F42F62B-9F96-42B8-B5FC-577B6322B24C@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Indeed! My English interpreter says all ;) sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 2 May 2014 21:27, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Godwin, your friend is not very good at English. "Computer-crime > defendants" without a modifier means an indeterminate number of them, not > all of them... So you were probably right. ;) > > [] fraterno > > --c.a. > > sent from a dumbphone > > On 02/05/2014, at 19:28, "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" < > mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG> wrote: > > > This reminds me of a friend who asked me a couple of decades back what I > was doing in my post-law-school work. “I represent computer-crime > defendants,” I told him. His response: “What? All of them?" > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA > > > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > From: michael gurstein > Reply-To: michael gurstein > Date: Friday, May 2, 2014 at 1:17 PM > To: 'Carolina Rossini' , 'Eduardo Bertoni' < > ebertoni65 at gmail.com> > Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" > Subject: RE: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM > > Carolina in the statement (and in the other statement as I recall) the > terminology of “we as civil society” was used repeatedly either directly > or as implied. > > > > Perhaps, given what you say below you might want to correct that (it seems > a wee bit arrogant to my ears to be claiming to be speaking on behalf of > all of civil society—I know for example that I, and my Community > Informatics colleagues weren’t consulted… and I’m guessing that the other > several billion or so folks who might identify themselves as CS weren’t > consulted either. > > M > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] > *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini > *Sent:* Friday, May 02, 2014 5:23 PM > *To:* Eduardo Bertoni > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] new BB statement - reflections on NM > > > > I do not think it is a contradiction. It just mirrors different > reflections by many who did not feel represented in the statement delivered > at the end. BB is a platform, not a body or an organization. Not every > statement is signed by every organization engaged in BB activities. That is > how I see this and - if I understood correctly many of the discussions of > this list and face to face meetings - that is how the majority of folks > feels about it. > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Eduardo Bertoni > wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > I am a bit confused. Maybe my confusion comes because, as I asked in the > meeting in Bali, it is not clear what bestbits is. Is it a network of > organizations? A platform for open discussions? etc. > > > > At the end of NetMundial a document called " > Civil society closing statement at NETmundial 2014 > > " was distributed. My understanding was that it was our 'bestbits' > "closing" statement. Then I read statements coming from many individual > organizations. That, of course, is perfectly fine. And now I see there is > another document distributed by Carolina, with a different tone and a > different perspective, also in bestbits. The new title is > Civil society statement: reflections on NETmundial > > > > So, just to understand clearly: Why is it necessary to issue a new > bestbits document? Don´t you think that having too many documents with > different views about NetMundial demonstrates the lack of consensus of > civil society about the final output of NetMundial? > > > > Apologies in advance if I am misunderstanding these two documents. But I > think the tone in each is entirely different, and since I signed the first > one, it would be hard to sign the second one. > > > > The fact that there is no consensus is not necessarily a problem. However, > it could be used by governments and others to stop listening to us because > they could point out that we don't have a common understanding of critical > issues. Why should we open the door to that? > > > > Best > > > Eduardo Bertoni > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > During the last few days, and to deal with the frustration some of us have > been feeling, I put together a basic statement text that has received > inputs from many of you so far. It grow from 1 page to almost 2. I do feel > we have reached a point where the text is closed and round. So I write to > you to ask you consider signing it. It bring reflections on the NetMundial > results. I hope this is more representative of how many of us feel. And I > do think it is a good closure step. It was in a google document > until recently, but Jeremy did the favor to put it online, behind a > password. > > > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-reflections/ > > pass: bestbits > > > > Adam as suggested small changes - mostly regarding flow, and I will look > for Jeremy online to adopt those. > > > > I hope you can consider signing it. > > > > Thank you > > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > > Click hereto report this email as spam. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat May 3 01:53:48 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 06:53:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Seem you guys know yourself so well ;) I have just recently followed and I think your views are indeed valid. My resolution is that "it's safer to be responsible for what I say and not others understanding of what I said" Thanks. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 May 2014 04:44, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: > Cher Jean-Christophe, > > honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your > email: > - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to > discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you > even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and > putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you > don't value democracy much more than me. > - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never > said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a > point about mckinsey report, use another thread. > - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a > problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable > for other opinions nor I have to explain them. > - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in > more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is > what we call discussion. > > finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. > Merci et bon vent. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can > impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting > you here verbatim : "no kidding!" > > 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias < > jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com>: > >> If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though >> final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a >> bit surprised with your email to Norbert. >> >> Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that >> are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, >> openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, >> innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and >> their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current >> MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No >> kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is >> balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or >> governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very >> serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. >> >> Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? >> >> I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the >> different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, >> let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years >> of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these >> visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that >> this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other >> parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people >> having a free word. >> >> Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and >> defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of >> IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach >> sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has >> changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS >> model. >> >> You have the floor on this. >> >> JC >> >> Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : >> >> > Hi Norbert, >> > >> > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing >> many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any >> role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at >> all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private >> sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big >> corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values >> you are mentioning . >> > >> > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think >> that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian >> citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of >> people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non >> democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they >> will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against >> their policies. >> > >> > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing >> region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to >> not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , >> I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments >> than their own citizens. >> > >> > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending >> cannot be improved at all. >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > >> > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >> > >> >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >> >> >> >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >> >> today. >> >> >> >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >> >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >> >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >> >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >> >> >> >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >> >> construct through which this human right is established is via the >> >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >> >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >> >> right to democratic processes is established. >> >> >> >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >> >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >> >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >> >> >> >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >> >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >> >> >> >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >> >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >> >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >> >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >> >> >> >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >> >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> Norbert >> >> >> >> >> >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >> >> schrieb Adam Peake : >> >> >> >>> Dear Parminder, >> >>> >> >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >> >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >> >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >> >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >> >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >> >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >> >>> oppose paragraph 35. >> >>> >> >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >> >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >> >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >> >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >> >>> >> >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >> >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >> >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >> >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >> >>> >> >>> Please act immediately. >> >>> >> >>> Thank you, >> >>> >> >>> Adam >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >> >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >> >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >> >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >> >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >> >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >> >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >> >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >> >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >> >>>>> MAKING. >> >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >> >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >> >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >> >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >> >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >> >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >> >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >> >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >> >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >> >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >> >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >> >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >> >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >> >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >> >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >> >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >> >>> YOU. >> >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >> >>> >> >>> Tunis Agenda >> >>> >> >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >> >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >> >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >> >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >> >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >> >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >> >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >> >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >> >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >> >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >> >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >> >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >> >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >> >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >> >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >> >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >> >>> policies. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Thu May 1 07:10:56 2014 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 13:10:56 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <5360F56C.8020002@cafonso.ca> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <5360F56C.8020002@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <53622BC0.1060307@digitaldissidents.org> Dear Carlos, On 04/30/2014 03:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not > included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand > English, this is the paragraph on it: > > "UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a > globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and > accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique > identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely > end-to-end regardless of the lawful content." > This definition allows for charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. So I am not sure it would fall under my definition of network neutrality. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Acting Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 551 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 3 03:55:23 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 08:55:23 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google Message-ID: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> This discussion is currently roiling Europe and beyond. The discussion and Zuboff's analysis has very significant implications for the matters of Multistakeholder governance which are currently being triumphantly trumpeted in these contexts and beyond. The issues that Zuboff is pointing to with specific reference to Google and surveillance underlie the drive to include companies like Google and others directly in decision making through multistakeholder processes/Internet Governance. It hardly takes a huge flight of imagination to recognize the signals concerning the extreme danger that MSism represents in the context of Zuboff's arguments i.e. giving Google (et al) effective veto power over and a highly influential (and potentially unstoppable role in) decision making in areas key to controlling what Zuboff calls "the rise of absolute power". (And for the Multistakeholderists among us here is a critical response from a former senior employee of another Silicon Valley corporate giant--Yahoo https://www.facebook.com/benjaminbratton/posts/10152082644097966?stream_ref=10 ) M -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Yosem Companys Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 4:41 PM To: Liberation Technologies Subject: [liberationtech] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google 30.04.2014 Dark Google We witness the rise of a new absolute power. Google transfers its radical politics from cyberspace to reality. It will earn its money by knowing, manipulating, controlling the reality and cutting it into the tiniest pieces. Von SHOSHANA ZUBOFF Recall those fabled frogs happy in the magic pond. Playful. Distracted. The water temperature slowly rises, but the frogs don’t notice. By the time it reaches the boiling point, it’s too late to leap to safety. We are as frogs in the digital waters, and Springer CEO Mathias Dopfner has just become our frog town crier. Mr. Dopfner’s "Why We Fear Google" http://www.faz.net/-gsf-7oid8 (a response to Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt’s open letter, "A Chance for Growth" http://www.faz.net/-gsf-7o8dh) warns of danger on the move: "The temperatures are rising fast.” If his cry of alarm scares you, that’s good. Why? First, because there is a dawning awareness that Google is forging a new kingdom on the strength of a different kind of power –– ubiquitous, hidden, and unaccountable. If successful, the dominion of this kingdom will exceed anything the world has known. The water is close to boiling, because Google understands this statement more profoundly than we do. Second, because accessing the Web and the wider Internet have become essential for effective social participation across much of the world. A BBC poll conducted in 2010 found that 79% of people in 26 countries considered access to the Internet to be a fundamental human right. We rely on Google’s tools as we search, learn, connect, communicate, and transact. The chilling irony is that we’ve become dependent on the Internet to enhance our lives, but the very tools we use there threaten to remake society in ways that we do not understand and have not chosen. Something new and dangerous If there is a single word to describe Google, it is "absolute." The Britannica defines absolutism as a system in which "the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency." In ordinary affairs, absolutism is a moral attitude in which values and principles are regarded as unchallengeable and universal. There is no relativism, context-dependence, or openness to change. Six years ago I asked Eric Schmidt what corporate innovations Google was putting in place to ensure that its interests were aligned with its end users. Would it betray their trust? Back then his answer stunned me. He and Google’s founders control the super-voting class B stock. This allows them, he explained, to make decisions without regard to short-term pressure from Wall Street. Of course, it also insulates them from every other kind of influence. There was no wrestling with the creation of an inclusive, trustworthy, and transparent governance system. There was no struggle to institutionalize scrutiny and feedback. Instead Schmidt’s answer was the quintessence of absolutism: "trust me; I know best." At that moment I knew I was in the presence of something new and dangerous whose effects reached beyond narrow economic contests and into the heart of everyday life. Google kills Innovation Mr. Schmidt’s open letter to Europe shows evidence of such absolutism. Democratic oversight is characterized as "heavy-handed regulation." The "Internet", "Web", and "Google" are referenced interchangeably, as if Goggle’s interests stand for the entire Web and Internet. That’s a magician’s sleight of hand intended to distract from the real issue. Google’s absolutist pursuit of its interests is now regarded by many as responsible for the Web’s fading prospects as an open information platform in which participants can agree on rules, rights, and choice. Schmidt warns that were the E.U. to oppose Google’s practices, Europe risks becoming "an innovation desert." Just the opposite is more likely true. Thanks in part to Google’s exquisite genius in the science of surveillance, the audacity with which it has expropriated users’ rights to privacy, and the aggressive tactics of the NSA, people are losing trust in the entire digital medium. It is this loss of trust that stands to kill innovation. To make some sense of our predicament, let’s take a fresh look at how we got here, the nature of the threats we face, and the stakes for the future. Google Colonizes a Blank Area and the NSA Follows In his extended essay, "The Loneliness of the Dying", the sociologist Norbert Elias observes that "dying is at present a largely unformed situation, a blank area on the social map." Such "blanks" occur when earlier meanings and practices no longer apply, but new ones have yet to be created. Google’s rapid rise to power was possible because it ventured into this kind of blank area. It colonized the blank space at high speed without challenge or impediment. Google did not ask permission, seek consensus, elicit opinion, or even make visible its rules and ramparts. How did this occur? Breaking the Rules of the "Old World" The first key ingredient was demand. During the second half of the twentieth century, more education and complex social experience produced a new kind of individual. No longer content to conform to the mass, more people sought their own unique paths to self-determination. It was a period of growing frustration with existing institutions that were still oriented toward the mass society of an earlier time. People wanted to reinvent social experiences in ways that expressed their new sensibilities. They wanted information on their own terms, not controlled by the old norms, professional fortresses, and business models. The arrival of the Internet provided a new way forward. As web browsers and search tools became available, the new individuals rushed onto the Web with their pent up demands for genuine voice and connection. Information access and communication could bypass old boundaries and be reconfigured to suit any need. Here finally was experience how I want it, where I want it, when I want it. There was a presumption that the adversarial rules from the "old world" of 20th century commerce did not apply. This was a new "networked public sphere," as legal scholar Yochai Benkler called it. There was no looking back. Google and other companies rushed into the new space too, and for a while it seemed that they were aligned with the popular expectations of trust and collaboration. But as pressures for profit increased, Google, Facebook, and others shifted to an advertising model that required the covert capture of user data as the currency for ad sales. Profits rapidly materialized and motivated ever more ruthless and determined data collection. The new science of data mining exploded, driven in part by Google’s spectacular success. Fighting the Law The whole topography of cyberspace then began to morph as Google and Facebook shifted away from the ethos of the public web, while carefully retaining its rhetoric. They began to develop a new logic of operations in what had until then been a blank area. The new zone didn’t resemble the bricks and mortar world of commerce, but neither did it follow the norms of the open web. This confused and distracted users. In fact, the firms were developing a wholly new business logic that incorporated elements of the conventional logic of corporate capitalism –especially its adversarialism toward end consumers – along with elements from the new Internet world – especially its intimacy. The outcome was the elaboration of a new commercial logic based on hidden surveillance. Most people did not understand that they and their friends were being tracked, parsed, and mined without their knowledge or consent. A steady stream of eruptions from the new zone provides evidence of this new logic of operations. For example, Google faces a series of contentious lawsuits over its secret scanning of all Gmail, including mail from non-Gmail accounts. It first tried to conceal the scanning procedures in 2010 and only fully acknowledged them after four years of public outcry. In one „potentially explosive” lawsuit Google acknowledged that it unilaterally scans millions of email messages sent or received by the 30 million student users of the the company’s Apps for Education tools. In 2012 Google face more outrage and lawsuits when it announced that it would consolidate data about its users from all its services without any mechanism of consent. Google Street View launched in 2007 is another example of the company’s absolutism. It didn’t ask if it could photograph homes for public consumption, it just took what it wanted and waited for any resistance to exhaust itself in defeat. Ultimately Street View would face protests and restrictions in many countries across the EU as well as Japan, Greece, and Canada. The Shared Interest of NSA and Google By 2010 the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection announced that Google’s Street View operation also camouflaged a covert data sweep from users of private Wi-Fi networks. He called for an immediate halt to Street View in Germany and erasure of all illegally captured data. Other countries followed with their own investigations and prosecutions. The Electronic Privacy and Information Center has consistently pressed the case. It maintains a detailed overview of the worldwide outrage, protests, investigations, litigation, and settlements in response to Google Street View and its secret data gathering tactics. In 2010, Google established a partnership with the NSA that added to the complexity and opacity of operations in the new zone. The ostensible trigger for this public-private alliance was Google’s discovery that the Chinese had hacked its infrastructure. However, the NSA already had a keen interest in all things Google. It struggled with the demands of tracking objects and discerning patterns in Internet time. The NSA was actively developing the same tools and capabilities that allowed Google to search and analyze masses of data at warp speed. A New Business Model The U.S. Justice Department kept the partnership secret, but news reports, court documents, and eventually the Snowden leaks reveals a picture of interdependence and collaboration. As former director of the NSA Mike McConnell put it, "Recent reports of possible partnership between Google and the government point to the kind of joint efforts -- and shared challenges -- that we are likely to see in the future...Cyberspace knows no borders, and our defensive efforts must be similarly seamless." The NSA developed its own software to mimic the Google infrastructure, uses Google “cookies” to identify targets for hacking, and widely accesses emails and other data through the PRISM program, the costs of which it covered for Google and other Internet firms. Google and Facebook had led the way in colonizing the new zone with a commercial logic based on surveillance. Now the Google-NSA alliance added new layers and capabilities, as well as a complex public-private dimension that remains poorly understood. Whatever the details might be, the new logic spread to other companies and applications, driving the growth and success of operations in the new zone. Despite this growth, it’s been difficult to grasp the changing social relations that are produced in the new zone. associated with Google’s new commercial logic. There are two reasons for this. First, the companies move faster than individuals or democratic public institutions can follow. Second, its operations are designed to be undetectable. It’s this later point that I want to focus on for a moment. Google’s Radical Politics We often hear that our privacy rights have been eroded and secrecy has grown. But that way of framing things obscures what’s really at stake. Privacy hasn’t been eroded. It’s been expropriated. The difference in framing provides new ways to define the problem and consider solutions. In the conventional telling, privacy and secrecy are treated as opposites. In fact, one is a cause and the other is an effect. Exercising our right to privacy leads to choice. We can choose to keep something secret or to share it, but we only have that choice when we first have privacy. Privacy rights confer decision rights. Privacy lets us decide where we want to be on the spectrum between secrecy and transparency in each situation. Secrecy is the effect; privacy is the cause. I suggest that privacy rights have not been eroded, if anything they’ve multiplied. The difference now is how these rights are distributed. Instead of many people having some privacy rights, nearly all the rights have been concentrated in the hands of a few. On the one hand, we have lost the ability to choose what we keep secret, and what we share. On the other, Google, the NSA, and others in the new zone have accumulated privacy rights. How? Most of their rights have come from taking ours without asking. But they also manufactured new rights for themselves, the way a forger might print currency. They assert a right to privacy with respect to their surveillance tactics and then exercise their choice to keep those tactics secret. A pre-modern absolutism Finally - and this is key - the new concentration of privacy rights is institutionalized in the automatic undetectable functions of a global infrastructure that most of the world’s people also happen to think is essential for basic social participation. This turns ordinary life into the daily renewal of a 21st century Faustian pact. It is difficult to appreciate the global reach and implications of this rights grab. Leaving aside whether or not it crosses the threshold of "revolution," it is a form of radical politics that has engineered a significant redistribution of power in just a few years based on the. Expropriation of widely held privacy rights and the choices they entail. This has been accomplished through a unique assembly of public and private actors and interests that operate outside the auspices of legitimate democratic mechanisms. In some respects, the social relations that emerge from this rights grab are best compared to that of a pre-modern absolutism. We have been caught off guard. Neither we as individuals nor our public institutions have a clear grasp of these new relationships, their implications, the relevant paths to action, or the goals to achieve. There are good reasons for so much confusion and dismay. The dynamics I describe have occurred in a blank area that is not easily captured by our existing social, economic, and political categories. They extend far beyond the realm of economics and the old debates about business monopolies and competitive practices. The new business operations reach beyond our wallets into the very essence of our lives. They elude our mental models and defy our rational expectations to such an extent that we end up questioning our own witness and powers of evaluation. Unfortunately, the situation is about to get worse as Google’s radical politics spread from cyberspace to the real world. Reality is the Next Big Thing What is Google up to next? We know it’s secret, but here is how it looks to me. Google is no longer content with the data business. It’s next step is to build an even more radical "reality business." Google sees "reality” as the next big thing that it can carve up and sell. In the data business, the payoff is in data patterns that help target ads. In the reality business, the payoff is in shaping and communicating real life behaviors of people and things in millions of ways that drive revenue to Google. The business model is expanding to encompass the digital you as well as the actual you. The scene is changing from virtual reality to, well, reality. Unsurprisingly, the two entities at the vanguard of this new wave are Google and the NSA. The "reality business” reflects a shift in the frontier of data science from data mining to "reality mining.” This new approach was pioneered over the last decade at the MIT Media Lab. Now its migrating to military intelligence and commercial applications. In a 2011 paper, MIT Professor Alex Pentland explains the value of reality mining. "We must reinvent societies’ systems within a control framework.” He notes that this will require exponential growth in data about human behavior.” In another paper, Pentland explains that the proliferation of sensors, mobile phones, and other data capture devices will provide the "eyes and ears” of a "world-spanning living organism.” Where do people eat? Work? Hang out?” - Distributed sensor networks,” he observes, "will provide a God’s eye view of ourselves. For the first time, we can precisely map the behavior of large numbers of people as they go about their daily lives.” The NSA and other intelligence agencies are already using “pattern of life analysis” to identify threats, including those that might originate within the organization as they hope to head off the next Edward Snowden. A range of software companies, some spun off from or funded by the intelligence agencies, provide capabilities in patterns-of-life activity and activity-based intelligence analysis. Reality is the new product Google’s ambitions in this new arena appear to be limitless. In 2012 Brin/Page/Schmidt hired computer scientist Ray Kurzweil to lead engineering. Kurzweil, a brilliant inventor, is a proselytizer for the idea that computers can develop consciousness. "Future machines will be human,” he wrote, "Most of the intelligence of our civilization will ultimately be nonbiological." Kurzweil wants to turn “the next decade’s ‘unrealistic’ visions into reality” at Google. The firm has purchased most of the top machine learning and robotics companies to build what has been described as the "greatest artificial intelligence laboratory on earth.” It paid richly for a company that produces high altitude drones as well as Nest Labs, a firm at the forefront of smart devices for the home and considered essential in the new Internet of Things. All this suggests that Google is building capabilities even more ambitious than reality "mining”. The aim is not merely the God’s eye view, but the God’s eye power to shape and control reality. Google’s glasses, wearables, or self-driving cars have a clear purpose: to inform on where you’ve been, and where you are, and to influence where you’re going. As one expert has suggested, third parties could pay for programming that drives the car sends you to their restaurant, store or political rally . There are vast opportunities for similar reality mining and shaping through the Internet of Things. This refers to the growing network of smart sensors and Internet enabled devices intended as an intelligent infrastructure for all objects and even bodies. From your baby’s diapers, to your refrigerator, heating system, mattress, lights, walls,coffee mug, and artificial knee ––this will be the smart neural network in which you breathe, eat, sleep, travel, and work. It will perform infinite configurations of actions, observations, suggestions, communications, and interventions all geared to a new product category: reality. Google and others will make money knowing, manipulating, controlling, slicing, and dicing all of it. Is Reality for Sale? To make sense of this big puzzle, it helps to have some historical perspective. There are two useful ideas for us in the work of historian Karl Polanyi. He described the rise of a new human conception: the self-regulating market economy. He saw that the market economies of the 19th and 20th centuries depended upon three astonishing mental inventions. He called them "fictions". The first was that human life can be subordinated to market dynamics and be reborn as „labor.” Second, nature can be subordinated and reborn as "real estate." Third, that purchasing power can be reborn as "money.” The very possibility of industrial capitalism depended upon the creation of these three critical "fictional commodities.” Life, nature, and exchange had to be turned into things that could be profitably bought and sold. Google brings us to the precipice of a new development in the scope of the market economy. A fourth fictional commodity is emerging as a dominant characteristic of market dynamics in the 21st century. "Reality" is about to undergo the same kind of fictional transformation and be reborn as "behavior." This includes the behavior of creatures, their bodies, and their things. It includes actual behavior and data about behavior. It is the world-spanning organism and all the tiniest elements within it. Polanyi understood that the pure unimpeded operations of a self-regulating of the market were profoundly destructive. Society required countermeasures to avoid such danger. He called this the "double movement": "a network of measures and policies...integrated into powerful institutions designed to check the action of the market relative to labor, land, and money." Regulation, legislation, democratic oversight...these are the critical responses necessary to protect society from a downward spiral. Anticipating the century to come, he urged the strengthening of the double movement, that "every increase in integration in society should thus be accompanied by an increase of freedom...the strengthening of the rights of the individual in society.” Europe’s Task This returns us to our starting point. Eric Schmidt and Mathias Döpfners controversy in the F.A.Z. is only the beginning of a disruption that will shake industry, society and citizens. It is a plea for the primacy, urgency, and necessity of a new double movement. It must be stronger, more confident, and more deeply principled than we have yet seen. It must provide a counterweight to a dangerous new absolutism that relies on pervasive, secret, unaccountable power. We are beyond the realm of economics here. This is not merely a conversation about free markets; it’s a conversation about free people. It’s an urgent new public conversation that can’t be reduced to 20th century technical debates about Google’s monopoly status or competitive practices. We tend to revert to these old categories in the absence of ready language and law that can help us discern the full implications of what is taking shape. But such specialized professional arguments shift the Google debate from the realm of everyday life and ordinary people to the arcane interests of economists and bureaucrats. They obscure the fact that the issues have shifted from monopolies of products or services to monopolies of rights: rights to privacy and rights to reality. These new forms of power, poorly understood except by their own practitioners, threaten the sovereignty of the democratic social contract. We are powerful too. Our demands for self-determination are not easily extinguished. We made Google, perhaps by loving it too much. We can unmake it, if we must. The challenge is to understand what is at stake and how quickly things are moving. The need is to come together in our diversity to preserve a future in which many visions can thrive, not just one –– Where many rights can flourish, not just some. Things are moving fast. This is why the world now looks to the E.U. - not to Google - to reverse the growing menace of absolutism and the monopoly of rights. The EU can stand for the double movement. It can represent the future and assert the dominion of democratic rights and the principles of a fair marketplace. These are the precious victories of a centuries-long struggle, and we dare not abandon them now. The author Shoshana Zuboff is the author of The Summons: Our Fight for the Soul of an Information Civilization(forthcoming, 2015). She is the Charles Edward Wilson Professor of Business Administration (retired) at the Harvard Business School and a Faculty Associate at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School. @shoshanazuboff http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/the-digital-debate/shoshanna-zuboff-dark-google-12916679.html?printPagedArticle=true -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu. From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Sat May 3 05:55:24 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 09:55:24 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] POSTnetmundial civil society position Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B53AE@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> I was pinged back to the list and encouraged to ask again if it would be meaningful to update the official NETmundial text so that forgotten viewpoints could be made visible again and skewed language aligned with a POSTnetmundial civil society position. I am aware that such post processing work has already been done and that what I'm suggesting is basically to do the same work again. The difference would simply be the format of the text. If the official NETmundial text is reworked to a POSTnetmundial consensus position it would be very easy to identify more precisely "what went wrong", e.g. with a wikidiff. If it is the case (I have understood it is) that, for example, the phrase "the rights of authors and creators" has less support than a reference to ICESCR has, it would look like this: NETmundial: Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law. POSTnetmundial: Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. And that edit would look like this in a wikidiff: http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox%2FNETmundial&diff=16666&oldid=16665 And so on, throughout the NETmundial v. POSTnetmundial document. Anyone bites? :-) It would of course be a challenge to put experiences of procedures and representation at NETmundial immediately into practice. But maybe that's worth while exercise? Best regards. //Erik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat May 3 06:05:55 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 12:05:55 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] POSTnetmundial civil society position In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B53AE@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> References: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B53AE@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <5364BF83.10705@wzb.eu> Hi Erik, I think this is a great idea but I would suggest a slightly different approach. As you can see on this list, there has never been consensus, neither within nor across civil society boundaries. So, I don't think a consensual postnetmundial doc can be done. What I would find a valuable exercise is documenting the specific suggestions made by civil society for each paragraph. I know that Marilia compiled the comments made on the basis of the first draft outcome doc. Marilia's work would provide a very good starting point. Further suggestions could be added to her document. Jeanette Am 03.05.14 11:55, schrieb JOSEFSSON Erik: > I was pinged back to the list and encouraged to ask again if it would be > meaningful to update the official NETmundial text so that *forgotten > viewpoints* could be made visible again and *skewed language* aligned > with a POSTnetmundial civil society position. > > I am aware that such post processing work has already been done and that > what I'm suggesting is basically to do the same work again. > > The difference would simply be the format of the text. If the official > NETmundial text is reworked to a POSTnetmundial consensus position it > would be very easy to identify more precisely *"what went wrong"*, e.g. > with a wikidiff. > > If it is the case (I have understood it is) that, for example, the > phrase "the rights of authors and creators" has less support than a > reference to ICESCR has, it would look like this: > > *NETmundial:* > Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should > have the right to access, share, create and distribute information > on the Internet, consistent with the *rights of authors > *and*creators as established in law*. > > *POSTnetmundial:* > Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should > have the right to access, share, create and distribute information > on the Internet, consistent with the *UN International Covenant on > Economic, Social* and *Cultural Rights*. > > > And that edit would look like this in a wikidiff: > > http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox%2FNETmundial&diff=16666&oldid=16665 > > > And so on, throughout the NETmundial v. POSTnetmundial document. > > Anyone bites? :-) > > It would of course be a challenge to put experiences of procedures and > representation at NETmundial immediately into practice. But maybe that's > worth while exercise? > > Best regards. > > //Erik From anriette at apc.org Sat May 3 06:29:20 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 12:29:20 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Sao Paulo pre-meeting report? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5364C500.4040503@apc.org> Dear Jeremy and all Attached is one of the working group discussion reports from the pre-meeting session in Sao Paulo on principles which I moderated. This report was submitted by Stephanie Perrin. I think most of the other groups also submitted reports, and I know that Niels and Deborah and Joana were taking notes. Is there any chance we can reconstruct some kind of report of the meeting? We had really good discussions and it would be useful to capture this in some way for future reference and use. Best Anriette -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Comments from our working group.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 73304 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Sat May 3 07:25:43 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 13:25:43 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 3 Message-ID: <5364D237.1020002@acm.org> And then there was the third day. The last day. We spent the morning wandering through the wilderness of repeated arguments. Reviewing and revising recommendations that had not reached consensus, and some that had reached rough consensus - what we needed was to reach full consensus. As we discussed them, sometimes we got tantalizingly close to full consensus, but then one or another of us, and sometimes it was me I must confess, said something that showed the closeness had been a tempting illusion. We had tea breaks and coffee breaks where the chair and various groups discussed the state of discussions to try and figure out what to do next. We had lunch. We talked, and we talked. After lunch we finally admitted, in a consensual manner, that we were not going to reach consensus on recommendations in this meeting. So we talking about the WG report, or rather, the Chair's report. Yes, we eventually did reach consensus on what to call the report! We then started to discuss the form and content of the Chair's Reports. Many of us told the Chair how much we trusted him to write the report and be fair. Some of us went on to tell him what he had to avoid saying in order to be fair. Maybe some trust is only skin deep. We went back on forth on what to do with the most valuable work done by the correspondence group. Some of us wanted it to continue and become a living artifact, and wanted that point made to the powers-that-be in the CSTD. Others said it was just an exercise of the WG and should be dropped - but i think that for these people the results of that work had not verified their view that there were huge gaps to be fill (ok, so I am showing some prejudice in that last statement, please forgive me. One of the few things that really bothered me during the meeting was the apparent disrespect shown to the brave and worthy volunteers who took on this large body of work only to have their efforts deprecated - and no i did not help them and was not part of the workforce - it was too hard a job for me and I avoided it like a plague.) As for the future, there may be further meetings. There may not be. If there are, they may occur this year. Or they may occur next year. I personally hope that we continue the work. but I hope we wait until after all of Internet governance 2014 events are over, and after all stakeholders have had time to adjust to the new realities that NETmundial presents. And after the IGF, which I hope learns something from NETmundial, and after the ITU PleniPot 2014 does whatever it is going to do. I thought the meetings were valuable. I think the participants, and I hope their fellow stakeholders - however they define the groups they are part of, have a better understanding now than they did before. And while we did not come together in final consensus, I thought some of the couplings at the meeting where wonderful. For example the KSA and Iran, normally not the best of friends, were bosom buddies at this meeting, united in their arguments on women's rights, treatment of marginalized groups and a host of other issues. It is good that there are still some things that can bring enemies such as this together. And to see civil society members working closely with governments and with business was a good thing too. If we can't work with the people we disagree with, how are we going to solve anything - we learn to build on the few things we do disagree with. Now I sound almost maudlin! One last thing: There was a possibility, as I mentioned in another one of these Quick Updates that we would need to submit _Opinions_. While we never did, as we never reached consensus to do so, several groups did arrive at a possible offering. Several of us from civil society, though not all by any means, did develop one. While I will leave it for the others who worked on this with me to associate with it or not, and thus to put themselves on the line to have to explain it, I am including this compromise proto-document below as I think it includes a fair number of ideas that are worthy of the light of day and of further discussion. Signing out from Geneva airport and the WGEC, at least for now Who knows what the future will bring. ---------------------- The Opinion This is the draft opinion of a group of Civil society participants including group members Avri Doria, ... --- Definitions Enhanced Cooperation: an ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral process where all stakeholders contribute according to their expertise and interests, to enable all other stakeholders to achieve full participation in order to improve and democratise the governance of the Internet at all levels. Multistakeholder process: a form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. Equal footing: the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet governance this is in line with stakeholders' roles and responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number of people that a representative may claim. Possible outcome: There is support within civil society for establishing a multistakeholder mechanism, to promote the ongoing monitoring and analysis of Internet-governance developments, and the on-demand sharing of knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences that governments and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions. We view this as a first step, building on the work of the Correspondence Group of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. There is also support within civil society for a second step of a multistakeholder coordination mechanism that would recommend the most appropriate venue or venues to develop further policy as required. This could be accomplished through existing institutions as appropriate. This mechanism could attached to an existing multistakeholder body such the IGF (per paragraph 72 b of the Tunis Agenda), to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or to any comparable venue consistent with the guiding principles as established in the NETmundial Multistakeholder statement. The discussions of the WGEC take their origin from the Tunis Agenda. The Tunis Agenda was a remarkable document for its time, that resulted from government discussions at WSIS. The Tunis Agenda laid a basis for ongoing discussions. The Tunis Agenda's great value was in giving an impetus to the development of the multistakeholder model in Internet governance. Over the intervening years, the variety of multistakeholder models have progressed beyond what could have been imagined in 2005, in line with technological evolution. Allowing the Tunis Agenda to remain a static document, as if it was written in stone, risks it becoming ever more irrelevant in today's world; Instead, we recommend that it be treated as a living document, a solid foundation upon which we can build our understanding of the enhanced cooperation of all stakeholders in the area of Internet governance. From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat May 3 06:20:38 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 12:20:38 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, I do not understand some of the discussions around multistakeholderism VS. (representative) democracy. This is not a "red corner vs. blue corner" issue, this is movong from "Level 1" to "Level 2". The multistakeholder model does not kill democracy, it enhances democracy and adds to its representative nature more participative elements. Civil Society gets a second channel to participate in policy development. It can elect its representatives in a democratic society and it gets an additional voice at the global negotiation table. As the Internet Governance definition, adopted in Tunis, has said: It is about "sharing of decision making capacity" with regard to the "evolution and use of the Internet". With other words, Civil Society gets a say in policy development processes amd decision making on the global level. I can not see that this reduces democracy. It enhances it. On level 1 you have different forms of (representative) democracies, good and bad examples. It depends on the government and the whole constitution. Switzerland is certainly a good example with its options to have direct decisions on various issues. The Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is obviously a bad example. India is the largest democarcy in the world. Denmark has also a very advanced democratic system. I have my doubts about democracy in the new Lybia, in Syria, South Sudan or Iraq. It could be much better in Indonesia, Paraguay or Venezuala. On level 2 we have not so many different examples of Multistakehoderism. But the ICANN model is rather different from WSIS. IGF is different from UNCSTD, IETF different from RIRs. And Net Mundial has produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of democracy/multistakeholderism. In a democracy it is the separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc. Any deal betwen governments and private sector which excludes civil society is not multistakeholderism. This is bad bi-stakeholderism or in the worst case the handover of decision making capacity from one stakeholder (government) to another stakeholder (industry). Don´t confuse one- or bi-stakeholderism with multistakeholderism. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak Gesendet: Sa 03.05.2014 05:43 An: Jean-Christophe Nothias Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; Adam Peake; parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation Cher Jean-Christophe, honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email: - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me. - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread. - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them. - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. Merci et bon vent. Best, Rafik ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here verbatim : "no kidding!" 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias : If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word. Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model. You have the floor on this. JC Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > Hi Norbert, > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > Rafik > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. >> >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger >> today. >> >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. >> >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal >> construct through which this human right is established is via the >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the >> right to democratic processes is established. >> >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. >> >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. >> >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. >> >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 >> schrieb Adam Peake : >> >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we >>> oppose paragraph 35. >>> >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. >>> >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. >>> >>> Please act immediately. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY >>>>> MAKING. >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK >>> YOU. >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. >>> >>> Tunis Agenda >>> >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant >>> policies. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 mctimconsulting at gmail.com Sat May 3 10:53:28 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 09:53:28 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google In-Reply-To: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> References: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:55 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > This discussion is currently roiling Europe and beyond. > > The discussion and Zuboff's analysis has very significant implications for the matters of Multistakeholder governance which are currently being triumphantly trumpeted in these contexts and beyond. The issues that Zuboff is pointing to with specific reference to Google and surveillance underlie the drive to include companies like Google and others directly in decision making through multistakeholder processes/Internet Governance. > > It hardly takes a huge flight of imagination to recognize the signals concerning the extreme danger that MSism represents in the context of Zuboff's arguments i.e. giving Google (et al) effective veto power This myth of a veto that you and Parminder have been propagating is just not true. I've participated in many MS fora over the last decade plus and never seen a "veto". NB: This isn't a "pro-Google" email, just a note to provide some reality based observations. I would also observe that IF there was a veto (which I've never seen any indication of) then wouldn't CS ALSO have the same "veto" in an equal-footing forum? jus' sayin' rgds, McTim From nb at bollow.ch Sat May 3 12:12:07 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 18:12:07 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <20140502172515.706c411a@quill> Message-ID: <20140503181207.709acd12@quill> Rafik Dammak wrote: > > I am very much in favor of open multistakeholder processes with full > > involvement of all interested parties, including the private sector, > > for the development of policy proposals, including coordination of > > proposals with the goal of minimizing problems when different > > countries choose to adopt different public policy options. > > good to hear that you are in support of multistaekholder process, I quite generally support multistakeholder processes in any context of governance as long as they're set up appropriately to not undermine or endanger principles of democracy. > that was not indicated in your first message. Well there was a link to a quite detailed proposal which is all about such processes. I'll admit though that this proposal I-D currently suffers from the problem that it is so long that only relatively few people will read it, and I still haven't gotten around to putting a decent summary together. > > interests of different stakeholder groups. These insights should > > then be provided to national parliaments so that the choice between > > different public policy possibilities, each justifiable and right > > from some perspective, will be made in a democratic manner, on the > > basis of the best possible information. > > > > > again good to see your explanation for supporting the multistakeholder > model with such level of details. I don't think it accurate to say that there is a single, "the" multistakeholder model. Just like there is no single "the" state based model. For example, even though in 1848 (!) the system of the Swiss parliament was modeled on the US system, the practical dynamics are totally different. > I responded to your when you were > defending the state based model and giving privileges to governments > even when you recognise the drawbacks. I would consider the model which I'm proposing, which assigns a pivotal role to national parliaments, to be a very much state based model. Even if it is at the same time very much a multistakeholder process oriented model. > > In regard to your point about non-democratic states: They obviously > > have a totally broken governance system. They obviously violate the > > human rights of the people living there. But neither of those points > > should be allowed to stop the people living in parts of the world > > where the governments are to a significant degree democratic (like > > is the case for me) from being allowed to insist that we value > > democracy, and we don't want to lose it, even when the line between > > Internet governance and traditional areas of governance is becoming > > more and more blurred. > so you don't propose any alternatives for those under authoritarian > regimes and want to keep a system silencing them because it may work > for you as swiss citizen ? how can this embed the democracy values > you are defending? I'm perfectly willing to provide any and all support to assist those who are currently under authoritarian regimes as long as the support that is asked is within the constraints of what I am able to provide, and as long as providing this support would not undermine democracy where it currently exists. When we talk about authoritarian regimes, we talk about governments who routinely violate the human rights of their citizens in various ways. Will such regimes be impressed if everyone outside their country agrees that states should have no special role in Internet governance? I think not, no more than they are impressed by the UDHR and the various human rights treaties. So in my view the proposed action (of denouncing the Tunis Agenda assertion that states have a special role in regard to public policy) would not only have (potentially, at least) dangerous side effects on democracy where it exists, it would also be totally ineffective at addressing the very real problems in the various countries that are in fact totalitarian. By contrast, I would support efforts aimed at spelling out what are and what are not appropriate types of business deals with entities in such countries. For example I would propose that providing uncensored(*) Internet connectivity to such entities is always a positive thing to do, even if you know that the ordinary people within the country will be subjected to a "great firewall" kind of thing. By contrast, delivering any software or consulting service where the primary purpose it to improve such a "great firewall" should be a no-no, etc. I would go so far to say that once it is reasonably clear what are from a moral and human rights perspective the no-no, legislation which forbids commercial activities of that type would be a good thing. Of course, when I talk of legislation, I'm again suggesting that (democratic!) states would take on a special role. I don't know how much this kind of embargo would help the people in totalitarian countries, but at least we wouldn't be guilty of contributing to making the situation worse. Other measures might be more effective. The idea of smuggling inspirational literature (e.g. about the life and the ideas of such heroes as Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela) into such countries, in paper form or electronic form, comes to mind. More effective yet might be fixing the shortcomings in regard to social justice shortcomings which we have in the practice of our democratic states, for example in regard to how our "Western" countries deal with the rest of the world: If we can rob the dictators of the grains of truth which currently still exist in the excuses and ideologies that they use to justify oppression, the likelihood of collapse of those oppressive systems might be greatly increased. Greetings, Norbert (*) With "uncensored" I mean here: Free from any kind of censorship of communications content. There's of course nothing wrong with reasonable network management practices such as discarding packets that are malformed or whose source addresses are clearly forged. From joana at varonferraz.com Sat May 3 13:12:09 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 14:12:09 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Sao Paulo pre-meeting report? In-Reply-To: <5364C500.4040503@apc.org> References: <5364C500.4040503@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, Good idea. I'll be happy to clean the notes and organize a report from civil soc pre-meeting, which I guess shall be open for comments in case I've got anything wrong. Just gimme some time. I guess after NetMundial, FOC, WGEC its my first day off to land back on Earth. ;) So I'll need around a week. All the very best, Joana On 3 May 2014 12:29, "Anriette Esterhuysen" wrote: > Dear Jeremy and all > > Attached is one of the working group discussion reports from the > pre-meeting session in Sao Paulo on principles which I moderated. This > report was submitted by Stephanie Perrin. I think most of the other > groups also submitted reports, and I know that Niels and Deborah and > Joana were taking notes. > > Is there any chance we can reconstruct some kind of report of the > meeting? We had really good discussions and it would be useful to > capture this in some way for future reference and use. > > Best > > Anriette > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Sat May 3 13:51:10 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 19:51:10 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20140503181207.709acd12@quill> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <20140502172515.706c411a@quill> <20140503181207.709acd12@quill> Message-ID: Hi all, I support parag. 35 of the Tunis agenda, until we have a better choice. MSism equal footing in public policy decision making is a snare. . Louis - - - On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Rafik Dammak wrote: > > [...] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Thu May 1 07:40:14 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 07:40:14 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <53622767.3080206@wzb.eu> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> <53622767.3080206@wzb.eu> Message-ID: +1, especially with regard to the idea of management of expectations. The NETMundial process was never going to result in something that would be satisfactory to all CSO actors, much less to all stakeholders. If one took note of the design of the event from the beginning, one couldn¹t help but expect a less-than-satisfactory result. Nevertheless, the event clearly both (a) signifies progress, as Jeanette points out, and (b) should be credited for *inspiring* progress, as Brazilian lawmakers and President Dilma Rousseff labored to pass the Marco Civil da Internet in time for presentation at NETMundial. (Of course, the Marco Civil is not a perfect outcome either.) Considered in the light of history, such progress over a short timeline, under such tightly constrained circumstances, with imperfect processes, deserves to be recognized primarily as a positive accomplishment, and shouldn¹t be dismissed as Yet Another Disappointment. It¹s easy for CSO actors to fall into a primarily negative response, but we may forget how easy it is as well for such a response to be dismissed as reflexive and non-constructive. That said, I have no problem with ongoing measured and even-handed assessments, which I think are important. The one I like most right now is the statement from ACP at http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224/. ‹-Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews On 5/1/14, 6:52 AM, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: >Hi Ian, > >the only cs people I could see against the light directed towards the >stage during the closing ceremony where those who didn't get up when >most most people in the room had risen and applauded process and/or >outcome. > >Less than 30 minutes before the closing ceremony, both statement and >process where about to collapse due to a few governments who weren't >willing to support the principle section of the outcome document. These >governments hadn't been part of the editing process and probably hadn't >monitored it either. They looked at the changes being made to the draft >document some hours before and simply said no to some of what they saw >on the screen, or wanted text included that they didn't see on that >screen. In this situation it occurred to me how very risky the process >was that we had sketched out earlier that week. Board and committees >simply hoped that the outcome would be legitimate and acceptable to the >majority of attendees. > >While more and more government reps expressed their discont and the >meeting was running over time, I tried to imagine what a failure of >netmundial would mean for the future evolution of the multistakeholder >process. For years to come, I thought, we would be stuck with the IG >truism that one can have either multistakeholder and chairman reports or >more specific outcomes BUT NOT BOTH. We would have faced an agonizing >stalemate for a long time despite all the goodwill and efforts to push >this fragile baby forward. If we had ended with yet another chairman's >report, netmundial would have be interpreted by many as a confirmation >of the limits of multistakeholder processes. > >I was so relieved when we achieved a compromise and prevented the >process from failing! And this is why I found it pretty hard to listen >to the cs statement and watch you all sitting their with your arms >folded and not even a little smile on your faces. >The only person who sensed the split between cs in the audience and cs >on the stage was Anja. After some hesitation she got up. I felt like >hugging her, and I wholeheartedly did after the closure. > >I guess what I want to say is that it a bit of expectation management >among civil society wouldn't hurt. This includes putting outcomes such >as the Sao Paulo statement into perspective while they are negotiated. >Only a few years ago we were unable to get consensus for IGF main >sessions focussing on human rights. Plus, is is still open if we will >ever move beyond a chair man's report at the IGF. Recent reflections by >cs people on netmundial move into this direction. > >jeanette > >Am 30.04.14 21:44, schrieb Ian Peter: >> The Niels statement was drawn up quickly by a group of about 30 of us >> sitting in the CS quarters of the conference hall after the changed text >> was leaked showing the last minute changes after the text left the two >> drafting committees. >> >> Some of us would have gone further. Some were considering a walk out. >> The text was probably indicative of a more balanced approach given the >> mood at the time. >> >> With a bit of distance from the disappointment at those changes, perhaps >> many feel differently. But it was an honest attempt to capture the mood >> at the time and I am personally glad civil society said something rather >> than nothing. >> >> But with a bit of distance from the event perhaps many of us have other >> thoughts. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake >> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:31 PM >> To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Cc: Andrew Puddephatt ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 >> outcome text open for endorsement >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. >>> >> >> >> Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the >> impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to >> speak and who did they say they represented? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of >>>> positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole >>>> process. I can¹t support this statement >>>> >>>> Andrew Puddephatt >>>> Global Partners Digital >>>> Andrew at gp-digital.org >>>> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >>>> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >>>> To: "" >>>> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome >>>> text open for endorsement >>>> >>>> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text >>>> was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society >>>> representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever >>>> from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >>>> >>>> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil >>>> society response later. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 3 14:04:49 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 19:04:49 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google In-Reply-To: References: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000601cf66fa$2d3e79c0$87bb6d40$@gmail.com> McTim, I have no doubt that you and your techie mates were able to achieve a cheery consensus on the issues which you chose to address. I have a bit more skepticism about whether a consensus could be reached in a discussion with Google on the future of "search" and its possible regulation as the head of Axel Springer Corp. seems to be calling for and as might be necessary sooner rather than later. My guess is that dealing with a group of people representing several billions of dollars in quarterly profits, their armies of very high-priced lawyers, their tame government negotiators and their overtly or covertly paid for allies in the technical and CS communities might be a rather different proposition. But I could be wrong, maybe you all would end up singing kumbaya together and going out for pizza after a multistakeholder consensus was achieved. M -----Original Message----- From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 3:53 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:55 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > This discussion is currently roiling Europe and beyond. > > The discussion and Zuboff's analysis has very significant implications for the matters of Multistakeholder governance which are currently being triumphantly trumpeted in these contexts and beyond. The issues that Zuboff is pointing to with specific reference to Google and surveillance underlie the drive to include companies like Google and others directly in decision making through multistakeholder processes/Internet Governance. > > It hardly takes a huge flight of imagination to recognize the signals > concerning the extreme danger that MSism represents in the context of > Zuboff's arguments i.e. giving Google (et al) effective veto power This myth of a veto that you and Parminder have been propagating is just not true. I've participated in many MS fora over the last decade plus and never seen a "veto". NB: This isn't a "pro-Google" email, just a note to provide some reality based observations. I would also observe that IF there was a veto (which I've never seen any indication of) then wouldn't CS ALSO have the same "veto" in an equal-footing forum? jus' sayin' rgds, McTim From anriette at apc.org Sat May 3 15:07:53 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 21:07:53 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Sao Paulo pre-meeting report? In-Reply-To: References: <5364C500.4040503@apc.org> Message-ID: <53653E89.9020008@apc.org> No rush ! You need to get some rest. But good to know we can pull something together. Anriette On 03/05/2014 19:12, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear Anriette, > Good idea. > I'll be happy to clean the notes and organize a report from civil soc > pre-meeting, which I guess shall be open for comments in case I've got > anything wrong. Just gimme some time. I guess after NetMundial, FOC, > WGEC its my first day off to land back on Earth. ;) So I'll need > around a week. > All the very best, > Joana > > On 3 May 2014 12:29, "Anriette Esterhuysen" > wrote: > > Dear Jeremy and all > > Attached is one of the working group discussion reports from the > pre-meeting session in Sao Paulo on principles which I moderated. This > report was submitted by Stephanie Perrin. I think most of the other > groups also submitted reports, and I know that Niels and Deborah and > Joana were taking notes. > > Is there any chance we can reconstruct some kind of report of the > meeting? We had really good discussions and it would be useful to > capture this in some way for future reference and use. > > Best > > Anriette > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Sat May 3 15:40:35 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 21:40:35 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google In-Reply-To: <000601cf66fa$2d3e79c0$87bb6d40$@gmail.com> References: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> <000601cf66fa$2d3e79c0$87bb6d40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, it is hard to even count the number of ways you have got this all wrong. You’ve read a letter from a publisher and since it goes along with your prejudices you think it is 100% accurate. What you clearly don’t understand is there is a dispute between publishers and the whole Internet sector going on here, not just Google. The publishers have tried to get the German courts to essentially make *every single* link to *every single* piece of copyrighted work something that all online uses that involve links must pay for. This would of course result in a disastrous precedent that would be incredibly harmful to freedom of expression. This has been recognised by scores of NGOs across Europe who have fought against this, any number of whom are on this list. I will be the first to agree with legitimate criticism of companies, but this is so spectacularly factually wrong - and wrong in the opposite direction of what you have said you stand for - that I really recommend you stop this meme defending Axel Springer until you’ve researched it. On 3 May 2014, at 20:04, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, I have no doubt that you and your techie mates were able to achieve a cheery consensus on the issues which you chose to address. I have a bit more skepticism about whether a consensus could be reached in a discussion with Google on the future of "search" and its possible regulation as the head of Axel Springer Corp. seems to be calling for and as might be necessary sooner rather than later. > > My guess is that dealing with a group of people representing several billions of dollars in quarterly profits, their armies of very high-priced lawyers, their tame government negotiators and their overtly or covertly paid for allies in the technical and CS communities might be a rather different proposition. But I could be wrong, maybe you all would end up singing kumbaya together and going out for pizza after a multistakeholder consensus was achieved. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 3:53 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google > > > > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:55 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> This discussion is currently roiling Europe and beyond. >> >> The discussion and Zuboff's analysis has very significant implications for the matters of Multistakeholder governance which are currently being triumphantly trumpeted in these contexts and beyond. The issues that Zuboff is pointing to with specific reference to Google and surveillance underlie the drive to include companies like Google and others directly in decision making through multistakeholder processes/Internet Governance. >> >> It hardly takes a huge flight of imagination to recognize the signals >> concerning the extreme danger that MSism represents in the context of >> Zuboff's arguments i.e. giving Google (et al) effective veto power > > This myth of a veto that you and Parminder have been propagating is just not true. > > I've participated in many MS fora over the last decade plus and never seen a "veto". > > NB: This isn't a "pro-Google" email, just a note to provide some reality based observations. > > > I would also observe that IF there was a veto (which I've never seen any indication of) then wouldn't CS ALSO have the same "veto" in an equal-footing forum? > > jus' sayin' > > rgds, > > McTim > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Sat May 3 18:05:55 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 18:05:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Sao Paulo pre-meeting report? In-Reply-To: <53653E89.9020008@apc.org> References: <5364C500.4040503@apc.org> <53653E89.9020008@apc.org> Message-ID: <9C38C699-C236-47A0-B9AD-4398FCADE843@accessnow.org> I'm also happy to help Joana. Let's touch base after some rest. Great idea Anriette! All the best, Deborah Sent from my iPhone > On May 3, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > No rush ! You need to get some rest. But good to know we can pull something together. Anriette > > >> On 03/05/2014 19:12, Joana Varon wrote: >> Dear Anriette, >> Good idea. >> I'll be happy to clean the notes and organize a report from civil soc pre-meeting, which I guess shall be open for comments in case I've got anything wrong. Just gimme some time. I guess after NetMundial, FOC, WGEC its my first day off to land back on Earth. ;) So I'll need around a week. >> All the very best, >> Joana >> >>> On 3 May 2014 12:29, "Anriette Esterhuysen" wrote: >>> Dear Jeremy and all >>> >>> Attached is one of the working group discussion reports from the >>> pre-meeting session in Sao Paulo on principles which I moderated. This >>> report was submitted by Stephanie Perrin. I think most of the other >>> groups also submitted reports, and I know that Niels and Deborah and >>> Joana were taking notes. >>> >>> Is there any chance we can reconstruct some kind of report of the >>> meeting? We had really good discussions and it would be useful to >>> capture this in some way for future reference and use. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat May 3 18:09:06 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 23:09:06 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google In-Reply-To: References: <001001cf66a5$0ac0acb0$20420610$@gmail.com> <000601cf66fa$2d3e79c0$87bb6d40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201cf671c$4ddbf640$e993e2c0$@gmail.com> Nick, I have no particular truck nor trade with Springer Corp (being old enough to remember the company of old and how it effectively murdered Rudi Dutschke) but his comments on Google ring true-ish and whatever their position on linking his anguish in the face of a Borgish Google (absorbing all in its relentless path) rings very true to my ears. (Not quite the same argument but somewhat similar perception of Google... https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/is-google-like-gas-or-like-steel-n either-it-is-like-nernsts-third-law-of-thermodynamics-or-the-nicene-creed/ http://tinyurl.com/pctwda9 M -----Original Message----- From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 8:41 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google --Apple-Mail=_AD49ACCF-C633-4822-8184-E25C8101AEEC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Michael, it is hard to even count the number of ways you have got this = all wrong. You=92ve read a letter from a publisher and since it goes along with = your prejudices you think it is 100% accurate. What you clearly don=92t understand is there is a dispute between = publishers and the whole Internet sector going on here, not just Google. = The publishers have tried to get the German courts to essentially make = *every single* link to *every single* piece of copyrighted work = something that all online uses that involve links must pay for. This would of course result in a disastrous precedent that would be = incredibly harmful to freedom of expression. This has been recognised by scores of NGOs across Europe who have fought = against this, any number of whom are on this list. I will be the first to agree with legitimate criticism of companies, but = this is so spectacularly factually wrong - and wrong in the opposite = direction of what you have said you stand for - that I really recommend = you stop this meme defending Axel Springer until you=92ve researched it.=20= On 3 May 2014, at 20:04, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, I have no doubt that you and your techie mates were able to = achieve a cheery consensus on the issues which you chose to address. I = have a bit more skepticism about whether a consensus could be reached in = a discussion with Google on the future of "search" and its possible = regulation as the head of Axel Springer Corp. seems to be calling for = and as might be necessary sooner rather than later. >=20 > My guess is that dealing with a group of people representing several = billions of dollars in quarterly profits, their armies of very = high-priced lawyers, their tame government negotiators and their overtly = or covertly paid for allies in the technical and CS communities might be = a rather different proposition. But I could be wrong, maybe you all = would end up singing kumbaya together and going out for pizza after a = multistakeholder consensus was achieved. >=20 > M >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of = McTim > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 3:53 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google >=20 > > =09 > On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:55 AM, michael gurstein >= wrote: >> This discussion is currently roiling Europe and beyond. >>=20 >> The discussion and Zuboff's analysis has very significant = implications for the matters of Multistakeholder governance which are = currently being triumphantly trumpeted in these contexts and beyond. The = issues that Zuboff is pointing to with specific reference to Google and = surveillance underlie the drive to include companies like Google and = others directly in decision making through multistakeholder = processes/Internet Governance. >>=20 >> It hardly takes a huge flight of imagination to recognize the >>signals=20= >> concerning the extreme danger that MSism represents in the context >> of=20= >> Zuboff's arguments i.e. giving Google (et al) effective veto power >=20 > This myth of a veto that you and Parminder have been propagating is = just not true. >=20 > I've participated in many MS fora over the last decade plus and never >= seen a "veto". >=20 > NB: This isn't a "pro-Google" email, just a note to provide some = reality based observations. >=20 >=20 > I would also observe that IF there was a veto (which I've never seen = any indication of) then wouldn't CS ALSO have the same "veto" in an = equal-footing forum? >=20 > jus' sayin' >=20 > rgds, >=20 > McTim >=20 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits --Apple-Mail=_AD49ACCF-C633-4822-8184-E25C8101AEEC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJTZUYzAAoJEEVwc7dMrV006V0L/Rqt0KIDSqQg/PRc+X5tC/Kt 9SmbQxhZoPUF762a/pFcQYaLyvB1sy6Flk6Gvp3xJ3miC527NPszLe1X6WeLiNya KYcHNp8zlE1QSvy3TuCervjCsDIz+E3cFOedR4IZVG1ijCDNa14kFNAy/m+s4C3L Q0vCJ8QSRJVgbuLzRpVyNotLlD3erOvphSSugTsp7m/GY0qCh9OlIO9W2J1Om71Q 3pAf1V2UyS+FRqnwsZGDWzDZZ3RCyQ1o8X6+z7AMx8Ux1m7t01iABNRjTVSTDfAQ N4M6xYw+NTeI1q7ewx3lw5l4uznx4oa9R1Im+Wpi+62efAd6hkeJwjyQCoTVKKRk y40PnEtp6QB/C64Tvm6LtpWyI+VmawG88/pBiX3f4i+5+TRQ0m21VNgeDMg9EOaH YCH2MxI5nv4U22elLyrku5yi2a7WT4T4DBcH6BfHweMXyleK3hwsoc0gWB+ihnqK ox3Jg2wD5vRCsyM69D/nkhKDwIsmxnBUBkTmQHPMYA== =MteY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_AD49ACCF-C633-4822-8184-E25C8101AEEC-- From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sat May 3 20:25:33 2014 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 20:25:33 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> , <550eb4aab3f445ec9a4d0f2cab81246f@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On May 2, 2014, at 12:11 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Those opposing businesses involvement in Internet governance seem to forget who owns and operates the (data) networks being inter-networked across the Internet; not to mention the required consent of the massive legion of -volunteer- techies who keep the whole thing afloat. > > Anyway, it's kind of -late- in the day to begin pining for the 19th century when governments could multilaterally agree on tariffs and two-way revenue splits; it's just not happening now. > > How governments choose to protect and/or abuse their own citizens rights domestically is a whole other matter, but really it is - just silly - to think the Internet can exist without multistakeholder engagement. Perhaps not as depressing as a supposed learned statement that fails to acknowledge most large, complicated human endeavors have generally involved the range of expertises and actors from a variety of parts of society. For a quite long time. A very long time before the Internet. So that supposing to slap on a multistakeholder moniker, for something old as the hills, does not make it actually new. And decidedly does not a new governance era introduce. > As the Internet has grown in global policy significance, ipso facto, citizens of the world aka civil society, technical community, and businesses, whether dreaded Hollywood IP rights protectionists or -- lots of other businesses engaged in aspects of networking - will have seats at the table. > > A multilateral table can amuse themselves, but not govern the Internet. A bold leap, to prognostication. Doubtless comforting to some. Reality - and sound thinking - invite a good bit more grasp of the facts, even as they display today. Start there, then a look into the future has at least a basis. > It is that reality which NetMundial recognizes; as does cough cough China/Hong Kong hosting the Internet Hall of Fame dinner 3 weeks ago. (congrats to the winners, including Chinese pioneers, by the way.) > > Anyway, to be 'shocked!' that McKinsey tells businesses to pay attention to how trillions of dollars flow across the Internet through the global economy is shocking only in its presumption that businesses would not be paying attention. > > It does not obviate democracy anywhere, including in participatory global Internet governance processes. > > The take-away lesson from Brazil that many took, which is we are playing - in the big leagues now, and have to prepare accordingly - is the correct lesson. Others, who look to a bit longer stretch of facts, come up with a quite distinctly different take. > > In my always humble opinion : ) ... > > Lee David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat May 3 21:40:29 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 21:40:29 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 3 In-Reply-To: <5364D237.1020002@acm.org> References: <5364D237.1020002@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks for this summary, very interesting. I think it would be unwise to neglect a chance to move the yardsticks forward on enhanced cooperation, which means (probably, or at least IMHO) seizing the good bits from the attached document, cross fertilizing with the good bits from netmundial, reminding everyone how far the Internet has evolved since Tunis (and therefore the people must too), and building a platform for rough consensus on multistakeholder action. This would be a welcome input to discussion on other lists, where the interaction at times ranges from arid to bloated, but all in all this will help it be more productive, with substantive action items like this to build on. Personally, while I sure understand that everyone is tired, I don’t believe we can sit on our hands until the end of 2014, there are too many things we need to push to the next level. Thanks Stephanie On May 3, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > And then there was the third day. > The last day. > > We spent the morning wandering through the wilderness of repeated > arguments. Reviewing and revising recommendations that had not reached > consensus, and some that had reached rough consensus - what we needed > was to reach full consensus. > > As we discussed them, sometimes we got tantalizingly close to full > consensus, but then one or another of us, and sometimes it was me I must > confess, said something that showed the closeness had been a tempting > illusion. > > We had tea breaks and coffee breaks where the chair and various groups > discussed the state of discussions to try and figure out what to do next. > > We had lunch. > We talked, > and we talked. > > After lunch we finally admitted, in a consensual manner, that we were > not going to reach consensus on recommendations in this meeting. > > So we talking about the WG report, or rather, the Chair's report. > > Yes, we eventually did reach consensus on what to call the report! > > We then started to discuss the form and content of the Chair's Reports. > > Many of us told the Chair how much we trusted him to write the report > and be fair. > > Some of us went on to tell him what he had to avoid saying in order to > be fair. Maybe some trust is only skin deep. > > We went back on forth on what to do with the most valuable work done by > the correspondence group. Some of us wanted it to continue and become a > living artifact, and wanted that point made to the powers-that-be in the > CSTD. Others said it was just an exercise of the WG and should be > dropped - but i think that for these people the results of that work had > not verified their view that there were huge gaps to be fill > > (ok, so I am showing some prejudice in that last statement, please > forgive me. One of the few things that really bothered me during the > meeting was the apparent disrespect shown to the brave and worthy > volunteers who took on this large body of work only to have their > efforts deprecated - and no i did not help them and was not part of the > workforce - it was too hard a job for me and I avoided it like a plague.) > > As for the future, there may be further meetings. > There may not be. > If there are, they may occur this year. > Or they may occur next year. > > I personally hope that we continue the work. but I hope we wait until > after all of Internet governance 2014 events are over, and after all > stakeholders have had time to adjust to the new realities that > NETmundial presents. And after the IGF, which I hope learns something > from NETmundial, and after the ITU PleniPot 2014 does whatever it is > going to do. > > I thought the meetings were valuable. I think the participants, and I > hope their fellow stakeholders - however they define the groups they are > part of, have a better understanding now than they did before. > > And while we did not come together in final consensus, I thought some of > the couplings at the meeting where wonderful. For example the KSA and > Iran, normally not the best of friends, were bosom buddies at this > meeting, united in their arguments on women's rights, treatment of > marginalized groups and a host of other issues. It is good that there > are still some things that can bring enemies such as this together. And > to see civil society members working closely with governments and with > business was a good thing too. If we can't work with the people we > disagree with, how are we going to solve anything - we learn to build on > the few things we do disagree with. > > Now I sound almost maudlin! > > One last thing: > > There was a possibility, as I mentioned in another one of these Quick > Updates that we would need to submit _Opinions_. While we never did, as > we never reached consensus to do so, several groups did arrive at a > possible offering. Several of us from civil society, though not all by > any means, did develop one. While I will leave it for the others who > worked on this with me to associate with it or not, and thus to put > themselves on the line to have to explain it, I am including this > compromise proto-document below as I think it includes a fair number of > ideas that are worthy of the light of day and of further discussion. > > Signing out from Geneva airport and the WGEC, at least for now > Who knows what the future will bring. > > ---------------------- > The Opinion > > This is the draft opinion of a group of Civil society participants > including group members Avri Doria, ... > > --- > Definitions > > Enhanced Cooperation: an ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral > process where all stakeholders contribute according to their expertise > and interests, to enable all other stakeholders to achieve full > participation in order to improve and democratise the governance of the > Internet at all levels. > > Multistakeholder process: a form of participatory democracy where any > person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. > > Equal footing: the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all > stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of > the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet > governance this is in line with stakeholders' roles and > responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with > reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by > governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, > contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number > of people that a representative may claim. > > Possible outcome: > > There is support within civil society for establishing a > multistakeholder mechanism, to promote the ongoing monitoring and > analysis of Internet-governance developments, and the on-demand sharing > of knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences that governments > and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions. We view > this as a first step, building on the work of the Correspondence Group > of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. There is also support > within civil society for a second step of a multistakeholder > coordination mechanism that would recommend the most appropriate venue > or venues to develop further policy as required. This could be > accomplished through existing institutions as appropriate. > > This mechanism could attached to an existing multistakeholder body such > the IGF (per paragraph 72 b of the Tunis Agenda), to the UN Commission > on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or to any comparable > venue consistent with the guiding principles as established in the > NETmundial Multistakeholder statement. > > The discussions of the WGEC take their origin from the Tunis Agenda. > The Tunis Agenda was a remarkable document for its time, that resulted > from government discussions at WSIS. The Tunis Agenda laid a basis for > ongoing discussions. The Tunis Agenda's great value was in giving an > impetus to the development of the multistakeholder model in Internet > governance. Over the intervening years, the variety of multistakeholder > models have progressed beyond what could have been imagined in 2005, in > line with technological evolution. Allowing the Tunis Agenda to remain a > static document, as if it was written in stone, risks it becoming ever > more irrelevant in today's world; Instead, we recommend that it be > treated as a living document, a solid foundation upon which we can build > our understanding of the enhanced cooperation of all stakeholders in the > area of Internet governance. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 3 21:42:10 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 07:12:10 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Roles and Responsibilities In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <53659AF2.7010505@itforchange.net> Wolfgang While 'ideal-typical' descriptions of democracy and democratic mechanisms are widely known and written about, I see none readily available for multistkeholder-ism. Vague motherhood and apple pie statements about openness, accountability, bottom-up and so on do not add up to much. We need to know what kind of actual processes are we talking about, and the political principles underlying them. On the other hand, coming to the 'practical level'; you describe many different 'in practice' models of democracy and we agree that some of them are good and not others. For instance, the Swiss model comes close to what we may all aspire for. In many other places, democratic movements are underway which are extremely disaffected with existing democratic models and are trying to create change from below, through movement building (mind you, none of them use the 'multistakeholder' term, and would reject out of hand any kind of corporate- government -civil society political equality). In India, there is considerable 'formal' bottom-up democracy with a lot of development related decision 'formally' in the hands of village- assemblies consisting of the entire adult population of the village. Now, this still hardly works, but formal -- constitutional - provisions exist and grassroots organizations are fighting day in day out to claim them in practice (again nothing to do with any kind of multistakeholderism). Now, while you rightly say that there are many kinds of democracies in practice, and we should be particular about what are we talking about, employing a similar yardstick, would it also not hold that there are many types of possible multistakeholder processes. And therefore we cannot simply say someone is against or for multistakeholder processes but only (usefully) talk about particular set of specific political processes that we want to call as multistakeholder, and support. If such specificity is required for democracy, it should be even more required about this vague new thing named MS ism. Do you agree with me this far? Now, I, and groups that I work with, support some kind of mutltstakeholder processes, which we have called 'democratic multistakeholder processes'. We are glad that the NetMundial outcome document accommodates our request to use this term. Presently, in a separate I will share clear principles and mechanisms of what we call as 'democratic MS processes'. Meanwhile, I request to know from you what kind of specific MS processes that you support, and then we can discuss something concrete. Lets stop this 'I am good, you are bad' because 'I support MS processes and you dont' game, and be specific. When you describe your version of MS processes and mechanism, I will request specific attention and information on the following; 1. What is the relationship of these MS processes to representative democratic processes? 2. Whether stakeholder reps are allowed to wield public policy decision making power? If so, what kind of powers, and on what political basis? 3. What are the legitimate means of selecting stakeholder reps, who without doubt, whatever be your response to 2 above, do exercise considerable political power in MS processes based polity? 4. On what basis corporate entities are considered at a similar political level and legitimacy as collectivities of natural people, who, traditional, alone are legitimate political subjects? We need to focus on this 'central' political innovation that MS ism (of the non democratic kind) has contributed and which is the focus of most of criticism of the such MS models. 5. And since they clearly exercise political power, should there be not similar (or higher) transparency and accountability standards for various levels of MS reps as we demand from public reps in the best models of democracy -- like complete disclosure of interests, constituencies represented, funding and other resource linkages, and so on... There are other elements, but lets start with these... Parminder On Saturday 03 May 2014 03:50 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi, > > I do not understand some of the discussions around multistakeholderism VS. (representative) democracy. This is not a "red corner vs. blue corner" issue, this is movong from "Level 1" to "Level 2". The multistakeholder model does not kill democracy, it enhances democracy and adds to its representative nature more participative elements. Civil Society gets a second channel to participate in policy development. It can elect its representatives in a democratic society and it gets an additional voice at the global negotiation table. As the Internet Governance definition, adopted in Tunis, has said: It is about "sharing of decision making capacity" with regard to the "evolution and use of the Internet". With other words, Civil Society gets a say in policy development processes amd decision making on the global level. I can not see that this reduces democracy. It enhances it. > > On level 1 you have different forms of (representative) democracies, good and bad examples. It depends on the government and the whole constitution. Switzerland is certainly a good example with its options to have direct decisions on various issues. The Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is obviously a bad example. India is the largest democarcy in the world. Denmark has also a very advanced democratic system. I have my doubts about democracy in the new Lybia, in Syria, South Sudan or Iraq. It could be much better in Indonesia, Paraguay or Venezuala. > > On level 2 we have not so many different examples of Multistakehoderism. But the ICANN model is rather different from WSIS. IGF is different from UNCSTD, IETF different from RIRs. And Net Mundial has produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of democracy/multistakeholderism. > > In a democracy it is the separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc. > > Any deal betwen governments and private sector which excludes civil society is not multistakeholderism. This is bad bi-stakeholderism or in the worst case the handover of decision making capacity from one stakeholder (government) to another stakeholder (industry). Don´t confuse one- or bi-stakeholderism with multistakeholderism. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak > Gesendet: Sa 03.05.2014 05:43 > An: Jean-Christophe Nothias > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; Adam Peake; parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > > > Cher Jean-Christophe, > > honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email: > - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me. > - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread. > - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them. > - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. > > finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. > Merci et bon vent. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here verbatim : "no kidding!" > > 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias : > > > If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. > > Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. > > Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? > > I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word. > > Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model. > > You have the floor on this. > > JC > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > > > > Hi Norbert, > > > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > >> > >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > >> today. > >> > >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > >> > >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > >> construct through which this human right is established is via the > >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > >> right to democratic processes is established. > >> > >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > >> > >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > >> > >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > >> > >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > >> schrieb Adam Peake : > >> > >>> Dear Parminder, > >>> > >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > >>> oppose paragraph 35. > >>> > >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > >>> > >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > >>> > >>> Please act immediately. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > >>>>> MAKING. > >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > >>> YOU. > >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > >>> > >>> Tunis Agenda > >>> > >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all > >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > >>> policies. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Sat May 3 21:45:25 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 21:45:25 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Quick Update on WGEC meeting day 3 In-Reply-To: References: <5364D237.1020002@acm.org> Message-ID: Stephanie¹s admonition is especially true in light of possibility that internet initiatives may emerge in the ITU Plenipotentiary in October. Definitely better to get more work done sooner. ‹Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews On 5/3/14, 9:40 PM, "Stephanie Perrin" wrote: >Thanks for this summary, very interesting. I think it would be unwise to >neglect a chance to move the yardsticks forward on enhanced cooperation, >which means (probably, or at least IMHO) seizing the good bits from the >attached document, cross fertilizing with the good bits from netmundial, >reminding everyone how far the Internet has evolved since Tunis (and >therefore the people must too), and building a platform for rough >consensus on multistakeholder action. This would be a welcome input to >discussion on other lists, where the interaction at times ranges from >arid to bloated, but all in all this will help it be more productive, >with substantive action items like this to build on. Personally, while I >sure understand that everyone is tired, I don¹t believe we can sit on our >hands until the end of 2014, there are too many things we need to push to >the next level. >Thanks >Stephanie >On May 3, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> And then there was the third day. >> The last day. >> >> We spent the morning wandering through the wilderness of repeated >> arguments. Reviewing and revising recommendations that had not reached >> consensus, and some that had reached rough consensus - what we needed >> was to reach full consensus. >> >> As we discussed them, sometimes we got tantalizingly close to full >> consensus, but then one or another of us, and sometimes it was me I must >> confess, said something that showed the closeness had been a tempting >> illusion. >> >> We had tea breaks and coffee breaks where the chair and various groups >> discussed the state of discussions to try and figure out what to do >>next. >> >> We had lunch. >> We talked, >> and we talked. >> >> After lunch we finally admitted, in a consensual manner, that we were >> not going to reach consensus on recommendations in this meeting. >> >> So we talking about the WG report, or rather, the Chair's report. >> >> Yes, we eventually did reach consensus on what to call the report! >> >> We then started to discuss the form and content of the Chair's Reports. >> >> Many of us told the Chair how much we trusted him to write the report >> and be fair. >> >> Some of us went on to tell him what he had to avoid saying in order to >> be fair. Maybe some trust is only skin deep. >> >> We went back on forth on what to do with the most valuable work done by >> the correspondence group. Some of us wanted it to continue and become a >> living artifact, and wanted that point made to the powers-that-be in the >> CSTD. Others said it was just an exercise of the WG and should be >> dropped - but i think that for these people the results of that work had >> not verified their view that there were huge gaps to be fill >> >> (ok, so I am showing some prejudice in that last statement, please >> forgive me. One of the few things that really bothered me during the >> meeting was the apparent disrespect shown to the brave and worthy >> volunteers who took on this large body of work only to have their >> efforts deprecated - and no i did not help them and was not part of the >> workforce - it was too hard a job for me and I avoided it like a >>plague.) >> >> As for the future, there may be further meetings. >> There may not be. >> If there are, they may occur this year. >> Or they may occur next year. >> >> I personally hope that we continue the work. but I hope we wait until >> after all of Internet governance 2014 events are over, and after all >> stakeholders have had time to adjust to the new realities that >> NETmundial presents. And after the IGF, which I hope learns something >> from NETmundial, and after the ITU PleniPot 2014 does whatever it is >> going to do. >> >> I thought the meetings were valuable. I think the participants, and I >> hope their fellow stakeholders - however they define the groups they are >> part of, have a better understanding now than they did before. >> >> And while we did not come together in final consensus, I thought some of >> the couplings at the meeting where wonderful. For example the KSA and >> Iran, normally not the best of friends, were bosom buddies at this >> meeting, united in their arguments on women's rights, treatment of >> marginalized groups and a host of other issues. It is good that there >> are still some things that can bring enemies such as this together. And >> to see civil society members working closely with governments and with >> business was a good thing too. If we can't work with the people we >> disagree with, how are we going to solve anything - we learn to build on >> the few things we do disagree with. >> >> Now I sound almost maudlin! >> >> One last thing: >> >> There was a possibility, as I mentioned in another one of these Quick >> Updates that we would need to submit _Opinions_. While we never did, as >> we never reached consensus to do so, several groups did arrive at a >> possible offering. Several of us from civil society, though not all by >> any means, did develop one. While I will leave it for the others who >> worked on this with me to associate with it or not, and thus to put >> themselves on the line to have to explain it, I am including this >> compromise proto-document below as I think it includes a fair number of >> ideas that are worthy of the light of day and of further discussion. >> >> Signing out from Geneva airport and the WGEC, at least for now >> Who knows what the future will bring. >> >> ---------------------- >> The Opinion >> >> This is the draft opinion of a group of Civil society participants >> including group members Avri Doria, ... >> >> --- >> Definitions >> >> Enhanced Cooperation: an ongoing multistakeholder and multilateral >> process where all stakeholders contribute according to their expertise >> and interests, to enable all other stakeholders to achieve full >> participation in order to improve and democratise the governance of the >> Internet at all levels. >> >> Multistakeholder process: a form of participatory democracy where any >> person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. >> >> Equal footing: the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all >> stakeholders, on the basis of equality and without discrimination, of >> the freedom to participate in multistakeholder processes. In Internet >> governance this is in line with stakeholders' roles and >> responsibilities, which should be interpreted in a flexible manner with >> reference to the issue under discussion. As with UN representation by >> governments, where all are equal regardless of size or wealth, >> contributions should be judged on their quality, and not by the number >> of people that a representative may claim. >> >> Possible outcome: >> >> There is support within civil society for establishing a >> multistakeholder mechanism, to promote the ongoing monitoring and >> analysis of Internet-governance developments, and the on-demand sharing >> of knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences that governments >> and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions. We view >> this as a first step, building on the work of the Correspondence Group >> of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. There is also support >> within civil society for a second step of a multistakeholder >> coordination mechanism that would recommend the most appropriate venue >> or venues to develop further policy as required. This could be >> accomplished through existing institutions as appropriate. >> >> This mechanism could attached to an existing multistakeholder body such >> the IGF (per paragraph 72 b of the Tunis Agenda), to the UN Commission >> on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), or to any comparable >> venue consistent with the guiding principles as established in the >> NETmundial Multistakeholder statement. >> >> The discussions of the WGEC take their origin from the Tunis Agenda. >> The Tunis Agenda was a remarkable document for its time, that resulted >> from government discussions at WSIS. The Tunis Agenda laid a basis for >> ongoing discussions. The Tunis Agenda's great value was in giving an >> impetus to the development of the multistakeholder model in Internet >> governance. Over the intervening years, the variety of multistakeholder >> models have progressed beyond what could have been imagined in 2005, in >> line with technological evolution. Allowing the Tunis Agenda to remain a >> static document, as if it was written in stone, risks it becoming ever >> more irrelevant in today's world; Instead, we recommend that it be >> treated as a living document, a solid foundation upon which we can build >> our understanding of the enhanced cooperation of all stakeholders in the >> area of Internet governance. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From parminder at itforchange.net Sat May 3 21:49:34 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 07:19:34 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Roles and Responsibilities In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7A2E4505-2C22-499C-9194-64CA7F72E147@glocom.ac.jp> <20140502154237.5539ac8c@quill> <7D28FC1D-C99B-41D8-AD82-E864D0A948F9@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642257@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <53659CAE.8070004@itforchange.net> On Saturday 03 May 2014 03:50 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi, > > I do not understand some of the discussions around multistakeholderism VS. (representative) democracy. This is not a "red corner vs. blue corner" issue, this is movong from "Level 1" to "Level 2". The multistakeholder model does not kill democracy, it enhances democracy and adds to its representative nature more participative elements. In that case, you would perhaps agree to begin using a specific term like 'democratic multistakeholder processes' and elaborating its basic principles and mechanisms. What about building such an initiative. parminder > Civil Society gets a second channel to participate in policy development. It can elect its representatives in a democratic society and it gets an additional voice at the global negotiation table. As the Internet Governance definition, adopted in Tunis, has said: It is about "sharing of decision making capacity" with regard to the "evolution and use of the Internet". With other words, Civil Society gets a say in policy development processes amd decision making on the global level. I can not see that this reduces democracy. It enhances it. > > On level 1 you have different forms of (representative) democracies, good and bad examples. It depends on the government and the whole constitution. Switzerland is certainly a good example with its options to have direct decisions on various issues. The Democratic Republic of (North) Korea is obviously a bad example. India is the largest democarcy in the world. Denmark has also a very advanced democratic system. I have my doubts about democracy in the new Lybia, in Syria, South Sudan or Iraq. It could be much better in Indonesia, Paraguay or Venezuala. > > On level 2 we have not so many different examples of Multistakehoderism. But the ICANN model is rather different from WSIS. IGF is different from UNCSTD, IETF different from RIRs. And Net Mundial has produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of democracy/multistakeholderism. > > In a democracy it is the separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc. > > Any deal betwen governments and private sector which excludes civil society is not multistakeholderism. This is bad bi-stakeholderism or in the worst case the handover of decision making capacity from one stakeholder (government) to another stakeholder (industry). Don´t confuse one- or bi-stakeholderism with multistakeholderism. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak > Gesendet: Sa 03.05.2014 05:43 > An: Jean-Christophe Nothias > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; Adam Peake; parminder; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Roles and Responsibilities - CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > > > Cher Jean-Christophe, > > honestly I was wondering if it is worthy and rationale to respond to your email: > - you always attack people, label, name and categorise them in manner to discredit them, to marginalise but rarely responding the arguments. do you even read their arguments? you are making a "process d'intentions" and putting yourself in the role to decide who is in the right side or not. you don't value democracy much more than me. > - again you make tenuous and flimsy association to things that I never said or defended like mentioning McKinsey report . if you want to make a point about mckinsey report, use another thread. > - you mention other statements like those made Wolfgang; if you have a problem with them address you questions to him not to me. I am not liable for other opinions nor I have to explain them. > - I responded to Norbert and he take the time to explain his position in more details and clarity while I still disagree in several points, that is what we call discussion. > > finally, I know that you will respond more vehemently, but who cares. > Merci et bon vent. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ps "You have the floor on this."? seriously, you think that you can impose the rules or tell people when they should respond or not? quoting you here verbatim : "no kidding!" > > 2014-05-03 0:37 GMT+09:00 Jean-Christophe Nothias : > > > If Netmundial experienced a positive and constructive spirit, even though final comments by CS ended with clear expression of disappointments, I am a bit surprised with your email to Norbert. > > Who ever said that the private sector would have no role? The ones that are asking for a true democratic eco-ssytem (legitimacy, check and balance, openness and transparency, clear mechanisms for decision making, innovation, fair competition...) Who, except for the status quoers, and their kindergarden folks are pretending that people challenging the current MS Blah are trying to impeach the private sector from having a role. No kidding! Private sector has a role indeed. One of the central question is balance of power (to counter any abuse, either from private sector or governments). Starting your email with such an argument is not very serious. I do wonder why you go into that game. > > Could we refrain from going back to gross or prehistoric dialogue? > > I am calling for a discussion among CS to explore and clarify the different visions of what could be the Internet governance eco-system in, let's say, 10 years of time - Wolfgang said another Netmundial in 5 years of time could be a good idea!!. I would rather have your views on these visions - unless you, like some others you would share the presumption that this CS dialogue cannot happen without of the private sector and other parties, being at the table, to avoid co-lateral damages out of people having a free word. > > Are you feeling honest by claiming that Norbert, me and others and defending a state-based model, because we remind to the current tenants of IG, that democracy is very needed in IG. Calling for a democratic approach sounds like some sort of nightmare to many MSist. Again, Netmundial has changed the narrative: we are now exploring what means a democratic MS model. > > You have the floor on this. > > JC > > Le 2 mai 2014 à 16:01, Rafik a écrit : > > > > Hi Norbert, > > > > If I understand the argument against Multistakeholderism I am hearing many times is to mainly aimed to prevent private sector from having any role. A position which de facto prevent civil society from having role at all. I guess that is just a side effect? There are problems with private sector involvement but is is diverse stakeholder having SME and big corporate, preventing it from participation doesn't match democratic values you are mentioning . > > > > With the state-based model that you are defending, do you really think that Tunisian government during wsis 2005 was really representing Tunisian citizens? It will be just ironic while you are mentioning the right of people for self-determination. The state-based model is heaven for all non democratic governments of the world ,and there are so many, because they will silence easily any possible dissent voicing at global level against their policies. > > > > Multistaholderism allowed me , the Tunisian and coming from developing region to participate in such process , but at least I have the decency to not pretend speaking for all the south and the marginalised of the world , I will stand against all those attempts giving more rights to governments than their own citizens. > > > > Multistakeholderism need and can be improved but what you are defending cannot be improved at all. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > Le 2 May 2014 à 22:42, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > >> TA art. 35 is very very imperfect for a variety of reasons. > >> > >> It also was dangerous ten years ago in ways which are not a real danger > >> today. > >> > >> Today it is IMO an immediate and concrete danger that carelessly > >> designed (and thereby non-democratic) multistakeholder public policy > >> processes could give big business the power to effectively undermine > >> the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination. > >> > >> In the relevant international human rights treaty, the ICCPR, the legal > >> construct through which this human right is established is via the > >> public policy role of states: First it is declared that the peoples > >> have a right to self-determination, and later in the document the > >> right to democratic processes is established. > >> > >> I am not asserting that this state-based model is the only possible > >> model of democracy, but it is what we have. I certainly don't want to > >> forsake it before a proven alternative is available. > >> > >> Until then I will support TA art. 35 with its privileging of states. > >> From my perspective there is no need for Parminder to retract anything. > >> > >> I agree of course that there are currently very real problems almost > >> every time that states try to get involved in a privileged role as > >> states in Internet governance. And I'm not talking just about the > >> various examples of totally non-democratic states here. > >> > >> I propose to address these problems by means of measures such as those > >> proposed on http://wisdomtaskforce.org/ > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> Am Fri, 2 May 2014 21:58:47 +0900 > >> schrieb Adam Peake : > >> > >>> Dear Parminder, > >>> > >>> To the best of my knowledge, no civil society entity has supported > >>> paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 49 Geneva Declaration of > >>> Principles.) It was the position of the Civil Society Plenary in > >>> Tunis that this language was unacceptable. To the best of my > >>> knowledge this position has not changed. As recently as last week in > >>> Sao Paulo it was a matter that unified civil society: clearly we > >>> oppose paragraph 35. > >>> > >>> So it was very surprising to read that you, as a representative of > >>> civil society on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation > >>> should support this language, and in doing so associate yourself with > >>> business, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among others. > >>> > >>> Please retract your comment supporting the Tunis Agenda text on roles > >>> and responsibilities as copied below from the transcript. You have > >>> time to do so before the WG finishes its meeting later today. > >>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda also below. > >>> > >>> Please act immediately. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>>>> PARMINDER JEET SINGH: THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY COMMENTS GO IN THE SAME > >>>>> DIRECTION AS THE SPEAKER PREVIOUS TO ME, MARILYN, THAT IT SHOULD BE > >>>>> RETAINED, THIS PARTICULAR PHRASE OF OUR RESPECTIVE ROLES AND > >>>>> RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO JUSTIFY IT, I MAY ADD THAT THE TUNIS AGENDA > >>>>> TALKS ABOUT THESE ROLES SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC > >>>>> POLICY MAKING AND NOT GENERALLY IN VARIOUS OTHER SOCIAL ENTERPRISES > >>>>> AND ACTIVITIES ALL OF US GET INVOLVED IN. AND THIS PARAGRAPH ALSO > >>>>> ENDS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WHICH IN MY AND MANY > >>>>> PEOPLE'S UNDERSTANDING IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY > >>>>> MAKING. > >>> IT IS IN THIS REGARD, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT > >>> IS THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS BEING QUITE DIFFERENT TO ONE > >>> ANOTHER AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS WOULD > >>> HAVE THE SAME ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING MAKING THAN GOVERNMENTAL > >>> ACTORS. THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT A GLOBAL LEVEL. THERE IS A > >>> REASON FOR US TO INSIST ON IT BECAUSE I REMEMBER IN THE SECOND > >>> MEETING, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING FOR > >>> EQUAL ROLES AND ASKED WHETHER THEY REALLY ARE SEEKING AN EQUAL ROLE > >>> IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING. I ASKED IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR > >>> REPRESENTATIVE WHO THEN RESPONDED TO SAID I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE > >>> PRIVATE SECTOR AND THEY SAY, YES, WE WANT TO AN EQUAL FOOTING OF > >>> DECISION-MAKING. THIS IS PART OF THE MEETING. IT IS THIS PART OF > >>> DEMOCRACY WHICH HAS ACUTELY BOTHERED US. I HAVE SAID THIS EARLIER. > >>> BUT I INSIST TO SAY THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THERE ARES INENCE ON -- THEIR > >>> INSISTENCE ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMES BACK AND AGAIN. FOR ME > >>> THAT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT PHRASE TO BE RETAINED. THANK > >>> YOU. > >>>>> CHAIR MAJOR: THANK YOU, PARMINDER. > >>> > >>> Tunis Agenda > >>> > >>> 35. We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both > >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all > >>> stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international > >>> organizations. In this respect it is recognized that: a) Policy > >>> authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign > >>> right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for > >>> international Internet-related public policy issues. b) The private > >>> sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the > >>> development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic > >>> fields. c) Civil society has also played an important role on > >>> Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue > >>> to play such a role. d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and > >>> should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of > >>> Internet-related public policy issues. e) International organizations > >>> have also had and should continue to have an important role in the > >>> development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant > >>> policies. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as 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 > > > > >