From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Oct 1 08:42:59 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:42:59 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Milton, No one can answer your question because it is based on a false premise. This premise is the US BUG. If you pose as a premise that you can "Be Unilaterally Global", and managed to make the world believe your way of using the technology is the single possible one, you certainly have an influence if your propositions looks acceptable (capable is another issue :-)). However, this influence is obtained by the rule of necessity. And as I said elsewhere necessity is mother of invention. In our digital network area, the US industry has succeeded in making the world's people believe that its root centered networking was a necessity. It is now up to us, the people, the Libre engineers, the IUsers to make obvious to everyone that digitality, by its very essence, is not centered and they are free to chose the laws they voted rather than the laws lobbied by the US corporations. I know, it will take time. And bigTrans National Corporations will resist. However, a few steps a head have already occured since IEN 48 was frozen by the status-quo strategy. The architectural vision has been better defined; software programming has matured; new datacommunications technologies are emerging; RFC 6852 is uncomplete but has been signed; the world in Dubai has voted "no". Snowden was used to trigger Montevideo, Sao Paulo and Geneva. Next date is Sept 30, 2015. One year to go. One year for the Libre MYCANN-plug-in to be explored, discussed, developped, tested and deployed. Tight schedule, for a few people ... http://mycann.org. You are welcome to join on http://0net.org. One year to go .... until Oct. 1st, 2015. ICANN or not ICANN will then be the question. jfc At 22:50 30/09/2014, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Content-Language: en-US >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="_000_b3d1154ec4094871a651da67b8305203EX13MBX13adsyredu_" > > >Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we >not discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based >telecommunication and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple >and obvious question for me? Please, I am serious. > >No one can answer this question because it is based on a false >premise. But you provided your own answer anyway: > > >Because US tell us so. And so many of us are happy to take our > > cues from the US, and its political and corporate allies. (Has it > > anything to do with from where the money flows?) > >It is based on a false premise because: > >Here in the US of A, we are talking about nothing else but a new law >and/or regulation on net neutrality, it got 5 million public >comments. And the same federal regulatory agency, known as the FCC, >has been running a proceeding on the telephony-to-IP transition >since January >https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-5A1.pdf > > >The dialogue you say doesn’t exist is transnational. I was under >the impression that there were half a dozen workshops on net >neutrality at this year’s IGF. I believe that the topic was >debated extensively, if inconclusively, at Netmundial. The European >Commission has also been discussing and acting on it. > >The word “net neutrality” is an American term and the current >Presidential administration is on record as supporting it. You >probably learned the words “IP transition” from America, too. So >explain to me again how the evil empire is preventing everyone from >talking about such laws or regulations?? I am serious, or at least >as serious as one can be when dealing with outlandish accusations. > >Is the basis of your political appeal now a shopworn >anti-Americanism, rather than a policy agenda that actually makes >things better? > >Keep in mind that “model laws” developed by the UN are >significant only insofar as they are adopted by national >governments. Which means, they have limited relevance when it comes >to global Internet governance issues. > >As a thought experiment, ask yourself which has had more influence >and importance to the future of the Internet: the UNCITRAL model e >commerce law? >http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html > >Or the Clinton administration’s Framework for Global Electronic >Commerce, which provided the rationale for ICANN? >http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce/ > > >If the latter proved more influential, is it because the evil empire >stopped everyone from talking about the topic and used Jedi mind >tricks to force it down our throats? Or was it because a globalized >approach proved to be more practical and suitable to the growth of >the internet than a fragmented, nation-based approach? > >If the neoliberal telecom competition and deregulation policies won >out in the 1980s and 1990s, was it because of US power, or was it >because the policies were fantastically successful at stimulating >the growth and penetration of the Internet and information and >telecom services and equipment, more so than the 70 years of >national monopoly that preceded it, and thus were imitated by >country after country? > >These might be more “serious” and productive questions for >people on this list to answer > >Milton L Mueller >Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor >Syracuse University School of Information Studies >http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ >Internet Governance Project >http://internetgovernance.org > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mahimakaul at orfonline.org Sun Oct 5 08:27:51 2014 From: mahimakaul at orfonline.org (Mahima Kaul) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 17:57:51 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Invite: Cyfy 2014 -- The India Conference on Cyber Security and Cyber Governance -- October 15-17, 2014 Message-ID: Dear Friends, Greetings from ORF! We are pleased to announce Cyfy 2014: The India Conference on Cyber Security and Cyber Governance, to be held at New Delhi's Oberoi Hotel (Zakir Hussain Marg), on October 15-17, 2014. Cyfy 2014 is India's most dynamic platform to engage and discuss cyber issues with the world. This year, we have with us, among others: RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD, Minister of Communications & IT, Government of India SAJID JAVID, MP and Secretary of State Culture, Media and Sport, United Kingdom URI ROSENTHAL, Former Foreign Minister and Special Envoy, Cyberspace Conference 2015, Kingdom of the Netherlands ARVIND GUPTA, Deputy NSA, India CHRISTOPHER PAINTER, Coordinator for Cyber Issues, U.S. Department of State, USA KARSTEN GEIER, Designated Head International Cyber Policy Coordination Unit, Germany WOUTER JURGENS, Head, Cyber Security Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of the Netherlands SEAN KANUCK, National Intelligence Officer for Cyber Issues, USA SHERIF HASHEM, Vice President for Cyber Security, National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (NTRA), Egypt GULSHAN RAI, Director General, Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, India DR. GOVIND, CEO, National Internet Exchange of India YU-CHUANG KUEK, VP and MD, Asia Pacific, ICANN, Singapore LATHA REDDY, Commissioner, Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG), and former Deputy NSA, India RAHEEL KHURSHEED, Head of News, Politics and Government, Twitter, India ... and many other notable experts on cyber issues joining us at the conference from many around the world, including, USA, Australia, Japan, China, UK, the Netherlands, Israel, Egypt; and representing organizations as diverse as ICANN, UN-CTED, Interpol, NATO, Symantec, Microsoft, World Economic Forum... The sessions are: CYBER LAWFARE: THE CONTEST OVER TERRITORY AND JURISDICTION THE DIGITAL NATION: IS SOCIAL MEDIA DISRUPTIVE OR DEMOCRATIC? COUNTER TERRORISM IN CYBER SPACE RETHINKING THE GLOBAL CYBER MARKET ICANN or ICAN’T? DECONSTRUCTING MULTISTAKEHOLDERISM PROTECTING CIIs PRIVACY IS DEAD? NORMS OF CYBERSPACE PREPARING FOR CYBER CONFLICT: IS IT INEVITABLE? EMERGING POWERS AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE: LOOKING TOWARDS 2020 We are also extremely pleased to inform you that this year the Kingdom of Netherlands, Microsoft, British High Commission, National Internet Exchange of India, BAE Systems, Twitter, The Hague Institute for Global Justice, Centre for Internet and Society, IT for Change and the Global Futures Forum have already joined Cyfy 2014 as partners. UK's Secretary of State Culture, Media and Sport, Sajid Javed and The Netherlands Special Envoy for the Cyberspace Conference of 2015, Dr Uri Rosenthal will also be speaking at Cyfy. Please find attached a flyer, with details on sessions and speakers. In case you have not registered for the event, please go to cyfy.org to do the same. There is no charge for attending, but registration is mandatory at: cyfy.org We will also be live streaming the event; please check cyfy.org for details. Also, may we request only Indians to take "The State of the Debate" -- a survey on what Indians feel about internet issues in India. Please click on the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9STX7CH Looking forward to your participation at Cyfy 2014 Warmly, Mahima Kaul Fellow Head, Cyber and Media Initiative Observer Research Foundation 20 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi 110002 India Landline: 91143520020 ext 2129 Cell: +919910170854 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CYFY BrochureQ.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 466725 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CYFY14 Event Booklet - Programme (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 646682 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Oct 22 13:33:30 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:33:30 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST TODAY: Internet Governance On The Move In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just to be clear, the webcast link is https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/IGonthemove/ On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > This has started. Due to tech difficulties, the webcast was a little > delayed. I am also relaying the webex video over http://bit.ly/isoctv > > > joly posted: "Today Wednesday October 22 2014 the Internet Society UK > England Chapter (ISOC-E) in association with International Institute of > Communications UK Chapter (IIC UK) and the London School of Economics Media > Policy Project present Internet Governance on the" > > [image: IG on the move] > Today *Wednesday > October 22 2014* the *Internet Society UK England Chapter > * (ISOC-E) in association with *International > Institute of Communications UK Chapter > * (IIC UK) and the *London > School of Economics Media Policy Project > * present *Internet > Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US Government IANA > oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution > *. A distinguished panel > will discuss the IANA transition, the current ITU Plenipotentiary > Conference, and the 2015 review of the UN World Summit on the Information > Society (WSIS), examining questions such as: What will the map of Internet > Governance look like in a couple of years’ time? Where and how will global > issues of Internet policy be discussed, from new domain names to net > neutrality and other online freedoms? What is ‘the global multi-stakeholder > community’? How should it oversee the basic governance structures for the > Internet? What is the UK’s role and place in this evolution? Panel: *Sarah > Taylor*, Deputy Director, Creative Economy, Internet, International, > DCMS; *Martin Boyle*, Nominet and Member of the International > Coordination Group for the transition of the IANA oversight; *Andrew > Puddephat*, Global Partners Digital and European Council of Foreign > Relations; *Malcolm Hutty*, Head of Public Affairs, London Internet > Exchange (LINX). Moderator: *Professor Robin Mansell* of the LSE. Remote > participation is available via webex. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet > Society Livestream Channel > *. > > > > > > > *What: Internet Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US > Government IANA oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution > Where: London School of > Economics and Political Science When: Wednesday October 22 2014 6pm-8pm BST > | 1700-1900 UTC | 1300-1500 EDT Webcast: > http://isoc-e.org/internet_governance_event/ > Webex: > https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/e.php?MTID=m97a3c59163ac8bdd2a649d8e7513cc1d > > Twitter: #isocukengland > * > > > Comment See all comments > > > > > > > *Permalink* > http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7120 > > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 lists at digitaldissidents.org Wed Oct 22 13:37:04 2014 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:37:04 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <5447E72E.3040606@itforchange.net> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> <5447E72E.3040606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Dear Parminder, I am a bit amazed that you first make a point on how we should substantively discuss issues, whereas you post this polemic directly after. It's perhaps slightly ironic that some of the people that you accuse of pushing the neo-liberal model were exactly the ones at ICANN51 in LA pushing for a human rights mechanism within ICANN. I am surprised that you see discussing issues of content and privacy at the ITU a part of evolving democratic governance. The ITU is not nearly transparent enough for this to be an appropriate venue to discuss this. Surveillance is not just an attack on infrastructure, it is a serious interference with the human right to privacy. The ITU has not got sufficient competence when it comes to human rights. Discussing privacy violations and surveillance should start with the UN Human Rights Council. Saying that the ITU is not the right platform to discuss this is not at all the same thing as saying that this issue should be left to the market or the US government (or five/nine-eyes for that matter). And I would even say that it is an deliberate misrepresentation that does not help the substantive discussion, and the deep thinking that is indeed needed, any further. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 10/22/2014 07:19 PM, parminder wrote: > > And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what > a neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just > read the below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out > rather well > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operations-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/ > > > > It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. > There can simply be no doubt in it. > > And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at > this crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even > painfully slow) evolving democratic governance of our collective > global affairs including the Internet, or shifting over to > neoliberal governance by the elite.. And if they side with this > structural shift to neolib governance today, it will be for keeps. > We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. At > the very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of > us. > > parminder > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Further to Parminder’s comments below. >> >> I recently published a blogpost >> >> >> (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic >> model of “governance by and for the people” is in direct >> conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of >> “governance by and for stakeholders”. >> >> I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in >> such a way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a >> value in simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation >> that often masks fundamental positions and values. >> >> I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue >> more broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a >> democratic approach to governance including in areas as central >> to our experience, well-being and future as the Internet and >> those who would give this governance over to decision making by >> those with specific “interests/stakes” in the outcome (and where >> the broad public interest if represented at all would be only one >> among many such competing “stakes”) is a fundamental one. >> >> It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of >> “civil society” and others opting for a position that does not >> support democracy and democratic governance however and in what >> manner that might be achieved. >> >> M >> >> *From:*IRP >> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On >> Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM >> *To:* Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch *Cc:* >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >> forum at justnetcoalition.org *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - >> Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU >> Plenipot joint recommendations >> >> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> >> Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware >> that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons >> for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we >> fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has >> expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the >> Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable. >> >> In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your >> criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an >> entirely accurate reading of its content: >> >> - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free >> markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should >> retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates >> where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal >> service and promote robust competition." The drafters include >> organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for >> stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) >> level. >> >> - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should >> take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes >> the "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the >> global governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important >> role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination >> and collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and >> multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we >> think are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge >> challenges ahead. >> >> That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" >> was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as >> proposed by Jeanette. >> >> I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views >> can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort >> to find the common ground between differing positions. >> >> >> Dear Anne >> >> Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage >> on this discussion. But my present email will only make one >> point, about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which >> your email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that >> manner, but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political >> criticism in these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean >> personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must >> recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction >> and submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the >> world they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the >> realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who >> really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on >> all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a >> political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil >> society space, as in the conventional political space. However, >> for instance in India, which has a rather high level of >> professional in traditional political space, at least at the >> national level, political personalities are able to be scathing >> and unsparing in terms of their political positions and counter >> positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil >> or any such thing. >> >> I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this >> because many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you >> come from a core political civil society background, and so I an >> really not talking about you.) I also say it because I and people >> that I work with feel that the present position that is being >> proposed on the BestBits platform a major political statement >> that we find extremely problematic and something that sets a >> solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging >> Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the >> world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and social >> justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner >> stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest >> it, with all means at our disposal. >> >> I will separately respond to some substantive points in your >> above email. >> >> best regards parminder >> >> Best >> >> Anne >> >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill > > wrote: >> >> I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his >> comments. >> >> Best, >> >> Richard >> >> -----Original Message----- *From:* Forum >> [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org >> ]*On Behalf Of >> *parminder *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 *To:* >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> ; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; >> forum at justnetcoalition.org ; >> IRP *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 >> hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >> >> >> I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in >> detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It >> says yes there are many very important global Internet policy >> issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them up, but >> tells us nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a >> recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free >> world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the >> documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its >> Global Redesign Initiative). >> >> I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important >> Internet policy issues at the global level or some other >> democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable >> that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows >> those who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly >> the US based economic and political establishment, to carry on >> consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an >> expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and >> therefore I strongly oppose it. >> >> To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); >> >> Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from >> developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies >> unregulated global market models for global Internet >> inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand of >> all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the >> WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the >> main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that >> issue by declaring that such things be best left to free markets, >> with no regulatory framework, or even a normative/ principles >> framework. In any case, it is not clear how even working on the >> interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from the WSIS >> is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not >> one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a >> mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the >> proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask for the >> closing down of the ITU. >> >> Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards >> a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world >> post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's >> colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on >> the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is >> concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of >> the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply >> given up and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? >> Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? >> Civil society must answer these questions. >> >> The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the >> UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. >> That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first >> committee’s work is much less participative (of other >> stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale >> here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see >> when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but >> right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first >> committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber >> security treaty will require the expertise of ITU which is the >> agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply >> obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks of a >> movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. >> Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly >> signing on this rather dangerous statement. >> >> The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber >> security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts >> and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on >> the area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just >> give up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet >> governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part >> of a process towards development of global principles and >> agreements and not a as a pre condition of them. This is >> universally known. One can understand why US wants to protect the >> status quo, but why civil society? >> >> Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet >> power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you >> where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will >> simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... >> >> Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of >> all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage >> is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global >> stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free >> reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at >> plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific >> Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's >> news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to >> regulate global IP TV transmissions). >> >> Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule >> of the economically and politically powerful... >> >> parminder >> >> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues >> >> As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to >> try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. >> We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in >> the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank >> you!). Our second and harder task was to develop positions on >> some of the most important substantive issues before the >> conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 >> page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the >> next 24 hours at: >> >> *http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes* >> >> The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference >> proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both >> because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because >> many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the >> day. As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up >> against the start of the Plenipot itself. >> >> It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, >> so we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If >> however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" >> issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me >> personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve >> this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid >> working group on whether to accept this edit. >> >> Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not >> presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on >> behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the >> specific organisations endorsing. >> >> If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send >> your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org >> ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) >> tomorrow, 21 Oct. >> >> Best wishes >> >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Forum mailing >> list Forum at justnetcoalition.org >> >> http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org >> >> >> >> >> - -- >> >> 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* >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp >> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUR+s/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpBSMH/0PR5KgEQ1rHeUZTUO7b3YWi kvYktLQp3oIwMwepxgahmNLZww8vWE3P70z/gLyNc7ZG0JlO2o0W6hgyRlpZzkWk 4t9u1ryOZ/CXWYLd53zQ13bPZuDeqAud3hheGIsozCdGkbXZpvMuznc1d+S2mTBC fwnqggGTUfpRmcIti5gR+rUmwtqFnKALz1+GfPyqBxvt8IeqvZGTRzT5kg/qxj0e wmuYgMBqicTfb42b2McAT5SCsm12JXhyM9EpHLZefcgClbh8VsVA/LqOwnbMLVgy 1jLTLGeGxDwmWrerYKVlbNhaeTYZdM7DA7Rp3miKirMoe7kBbTDexEkM2Mw2KWM= =b/3V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 13:51:45 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:51:45 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <5447E72E.3040606@itforchange.net> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> <5447E72E.3040606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00bf01cfee20$d8bc58a0$8a3509e0$@gmail.com> Just to add that Fadi's (and the CS's statement's) position that either you have MSism or you have the ITU is a complete red herring. The UN (as with the ITU) were of their time and gave enormous service on behalf of the global public interest. With the Internet we have entered into a new era, one where principles of representation as through the UN and the UN's state oriented structure is perhaps no longer an appropriate and effective protector/proponent of the global public interest. That doesn't mean that we should discard the "we the peoples" democratic basis of the UN Charter but rather that we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting those necessary democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. The alternative is not the ITU vs. MSism but rather democratic governance vs. governance by and for corporate and other "stakeholders" and of course our challenge is to find ways of designing and implementing the new forms, mechanisms and processes to respond to the new challenges and resources of democracy in a new Internet age. WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED * to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and * to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and * to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and * to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom M From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:20 AM To: michael gurstein; 'Anne Jellema'; rhill at hill-a.ch Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what a neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just read the below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out rather well http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operat ions-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/ It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. There can simply be no doubt in it. And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at this crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even painfully slow) evolving democratic governance of our collective global affairs including the Internet, or shifting over to neoliberal governance by the elite.. And if they side with this structural shift to neolib governance today, it will be for keeps. We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. At the very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of us. parminder parminder On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Further to Parminder's comments below. I recently published a blogpost (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic model of "governance by and for the people" is in direct conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of "governance by and for stakeholders". I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in such a way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a value in simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation that often masks fundamental positions and values. I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue more broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a democratic approach to governance including in areas as central to our experience, well-being and future as the Internet and those who would give this governance over to decision making by those with specific "interests/stakes" in the outcome (and where the broad public interest if represented at all would be only one among many such competing "stakes") is a fundamental one. It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of "civil society" and others opting for a position that does not support democracy and democratic governance however and in what manner that might be achieved. M From: IRP [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM To: Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable. In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate reading of its content: - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) level. - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges ahead. That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by Jeanette. I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find the common ground between differing positions. Dear Anne Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage on this discussion. But my present email will only make one point, about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which your email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that manner, but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political criticism in these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction and submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the world they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil society space, as in the conventional political space. However, for instance in India, which has a rather high level of professional in traditional political space, at least at the national level, political personalities are able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their political positions and counter positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil or any such thing. I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from a core political civil society background, and so I an really not talking about you.) I also say it because I and people that I work with feel that the present position that is being proposed on the BestBits platform a major political statement that we find extremely problematic and something that sets a solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and social justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest it, with all means at our disposal. I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above email. best regards parminder Best Anne On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill wrote: I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his comments. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of parminder Sent: mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org; IRP Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes there are many very important global Internet policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important Internet policy issues at the global level or some other democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows those who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the US based economic and political establishment, to carry on consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it. To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must answer these questions. The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first committee's work is much less participative (of other stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process towards development of global principles and agreements and not a as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil society? Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to regulate global IP TV transmissions). Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of the economically and politically powerful... parminder On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: Dear colleagues As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to develop positions on some of the most important substantive issues before the conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit. Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations endorsing. If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. Best wishes 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 _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum at justnetcoalition.org http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org -- 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 _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Wed Oct 22 15:42:04 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:42:04 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54472CDE.6060808@gmail.com> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472CDE.6060808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5448088C.6020101@eff.org> On 21/10/2014 9:04 pm, parminder wrote: > BTW, as I mentioned above, so much of 'global' Internet issues get > taken up today by the OECD's CICCP.... You proposal call for making > ITU CWG-PP multistakeholder. Interesting, and I have asked this > question often, I have never seen the civil society groups involved > with OECD's CICCP work - which included a lot of those who have signed > on this present ITU related statement - seek making the CICCP > multistakeholder.... Would this not count as hypocrisy. It is already putatively multi-stakeholder, though it's a different and lesser implementation of multi-stakeholderism than those of other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN and the IGF (though closer to the former than the latter). There was a big fight to get it to open up as much as it has, with the creation of the CSISAC. I agree that since then, we have been muted in our calls to improve it further - though we have made some noise asking OECD to support CSISAC better. Not only the OECD needs to improve its implementation of multi-stakeholderism, but other regional bodies like APEC need to become multi-stakeholder too - it's a long battle on multiple fronts. So far I'm focussed on only some of those, like TPP, which you've already identified. Also important is for us to present a clear standard of what kind of multi-stakeholderism we want, which was the reason for attempting to use LiquidFeedback to develop such a standard that civil society could broadly support (this has faltered, but I am still committed to seeing it through). The conception that the distributed, multi-stakeholder ideal for Internet governance is a neoliberal fantasy, in distinction to the so-called democratic/statist model, is quite bogus, by the way - but I'm not going to jump back into that debate right now. Very happy to leave that to Niels and Stephanie who have replied so far. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 16:34:51 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:34:51 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <01f4bda58af94b46af24f5d34136c364@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <01f4bda58af94b46af24f5d34136c364@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <018001cfee37$a21cc480$e6564d80$@gmail.com> Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including through their representative governance structures most of which at least nominally have presented themselves as "democracies". True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue, self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western, technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites. But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties lie.. M From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM To: 'michael gurstein' Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at apc.org Wed Oct 22 22:41:34 2014 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:41:34 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FAQ on ITU Plenipot from APC Message-ID: <54486ADE.3000602@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Dear all, In case of interest, I'm sharing a "frequently asked questions" resource from APC on Plenipot. We hope you find this useful. https://www.apc.org/en/news/what-plenipot%E2%80%9D-and-other-frequently-asked-question Kind regards, Deborah -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIbBAEBCgAGBQJUSGreAAoJEPeieloNaneNvZsP9jiKJvYksFUNtcAxMnX22Cpq DWtgDLztNT3aPe4sFcX7EF9etFd3sUTVg8LoAWxckzlpWKM+JZ2RE7tGGaMxpLYh jQ9p25IKrxLyDdTN9OWN67bQssCMNWh2HLL83/C16wOno/7szddxZ+Jzposuxpfd bvWsNfdWF/HL7LJIBDix/eIWaoL703m5Pkgqk3x58rNvwgCKFfVL3pJ4/nfgH1Sw PPJwb9JKT33Yroq7aVlBCiSW87OGSj5s3PA5dVeNiMawBIYdb1vAp78PHrrTzV6i QEmhMcJk5BWPjYAQUea3Dnl7jcPj5hsawywKL0Gqb2tzqNQ+oYeciPQfGafj/DnS AWUBpSOhIx1N6AhJpRHzoNMQZM5QRfspJK2bNhnkruEPrWUwuDLTkLxEyE5u0W0o LfM3IZ3BYhcrNeSzsqIsuO9ZtyME6wZ94zIbYr2pSTPYFeBr3t9MOTuBniYNB+d7 2hlmEGltnew1O0E2Ylr0N4fmXCArF/7QS3zE5Aj3T0qZLPAiEpdgt4p1pE1gaDsx /nBOzl0I7pKW7brxVGKh5qcdhVCY99gpx3fQo71DCKtFZavLc2awqhForJpf0i0e dAx9GB+kr0f0WIjetLSAA3ScWnxfnbUnSfbXCospeTjjSANaYtjMbhzipJhjGLlN Wyg8R2qyxIjWehQEXXM= =uX7n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From anne at webfoundation.org Thu Oct 23 01:51:11 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:51:11 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert The pre-IGF BB meeting in Istanbul (report on the BB website) agreed on the creation of three fluid working groups. Carolina's note on the outcomes of this meeting, sent to the Best Bits list on 9 September, outlined these groups and who to contact if you wanted to join. Snippet below: > - *ITU working group:* A group of volunteers (see the list in the BB > report) has been formed. If you'd like to join, please contact Anne Jellema > and myself. > > About 30 people requested to join the ITU working group, were duly added and introduced themselves to the group; no one who asked was turned down. The group decided not to open its email list archive. Many of the group members are participating in government delegations, which is a valuable source of information and intelligence that CS needs for effective advocacy (especially in the ITU context where access to documents is highly restricted), but requires that you accept a duty to treat that information with great care. Those on delegations felt that there was some of this information that they could responsibly share with a group of 30 people whose identities, affiliations and reasons for participating in the group they knew, but not with an open mailing list of 370 people. Second, as mentioned above and also stressed in my note to the list the other day, this was a group of volunteers who prepared a statement and opened it to the wider BB list for endorsement (or not). The statement has not been issued in the name of "civil society" or "Best Bits" but only in the name of the organisations who chose to sign it. I hope that answers your questions but feel free to follow up. Best, Anne On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:38:08 +0200 > Anne Jellema wrote on the BestBits list: > > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to > > come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. > > May I ask some questions about this?: > > Was this an open process which any interested civil society person would > have been accepted to join upon request? > > Are there publicly accessible mailing list archives somewhere? > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 03:06:51 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:06:51 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> Message-ID: <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> Can we take it then that those who have signed on to this statement or who have elsewhere indicated a full and unquestioning support for MSism in Internet Governance (including of course countries such as the USA who are actively promoting MSism in all venues) are in agreement with Milton’s definition of Multistakeholderism as governance by “private sector-based MS institutions”? And further that these proponents of MSism have renounced a belief in democracy (as in rule by and for the people) as the foundation of governance in the Internet (and presumably other) governance spaces? It would be good to know the position of various groupings on this central question of values so that for example, appropriate alliances etc. could be established in full understanding of organizational and individual commitments. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anne Jellema Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:51 PM To: Norbert Bollow Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Hi Norbert The pre-IGF BB meeting in Istanbul (report on the BB website) agreed on the creation of three fluid working groups. Carolina's note on the outcomes of this meeting, sent to the Best Bits list on 9 September, outlined these groups and who to contact if you wanted to join. Snippet below: · ITU working group: A group of volunteers (see the list in the BB report) has been formed. If you'd like to join, please contact Anne Jellema and myself. About 30 people requested to join the ITU working group, were duly added and introduced themselves to the group; no one who asked was turned down. The group decided not to open its email list archive. Many of the group members are participating in government delegations, which is a valuable source of information and intelligence that CS needs for effective advocacy (especially in the ITU context where access to documents is highly restricted), but requires that you accept a duty to treat that information with great care. Those on delegations felt that there was some of this information that they could responsibly share with a group of 30 people whose identities, affiliations and reasons for participating in the group they knew, but not with an open mailing list of 370 people. Second, as mentioned above and also stressed in my note to the list the other day, this was a group of volunteers who prepared a statement and opened it to the wider BB list for endorsement (or not). The statement has not been issued in the name of "civil society" or "Best Bits" but only in the name of the organisations who chose to sign it. I hope that answers your questions but feel free to follow up. Best, Anne On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:38:08 +0200 Anne Jellema wrote on the BestBits list: > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to > come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. May I ask some questions about this?: Was this an open process which any interested civil society person would have been accepted to join upon request? Are there publicly accessible mailing list archives somewhere? Greetings, Norbert -- 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 Oct 23 04:14:48 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:14:48 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Cybercrime, and the International venues for discussion of it In-Reply-To: <688BF6E57058134CA119FEED92415091E132E4@APGBHSPEXM0103> References: <688BF6E57058134CA119FEED92415091E132E4@APGBHSPEXM0103> Message-ID: Dear all, Given that there are references amongst the Internet Governance community from time to time suggesting that cybercrime is an ‘orphan issue’, and for those unfamiliar with the alphabet soup of UN agencies as regards criminal justice issues, there is an agency called the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). UNODC is one of the main venues where issues like cybercrime should be (and actually are) discussed, rather than ITU with its different mandate. Of course others like EUROPOL and INTERPOL are also very important. UNODC have a report, the Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime that is really worth a read. In particular, Chapter 7 on international cooperation is particularly worth reading (it is a big document). UNODC are also the secretariat of perhaps the most modern and comprehensive international agreement on transnational crime, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto. For those of you interested in the view of the agency on human rights as it relates to its mandate, their view on that may be found here. It seems to me that for those of us at Plenipot emphasising (often) that there are venues where the Internet dimension of key issues like crime and child protection are discussed, and more to the point, the places they’re discussed actually have as a core part of their mandate to work on them. ITU should of course be involved and engaged, but they should not be leading, either formally or informally, for the simple reason that they don’t have either the mandate nor the expertise. Of course, there are issues with respect to non-governmental engagement processes, but that to my mind is a separate issue, just as it is at ITU (which is not to trivialise the importance of that aspect of things at all). Regards, Nick -------------- 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 joana at varonferraz.com Thu Oct 23 04:39:53 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:39:53 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Cybercrime, and the International venues for discussion of it In-Reply-To: References: <688BF6E57058134CA119FEED92415091E132E4@APGBHSPEXM0103> Message-ID: <262B65DD-4DC1-4956-9214-71CA9CA8221B@varonferraz.com> btw embassador sepulveda has just mentioned UNODC in his speech right now at pp14 -- @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 On 23 October 2014 17:14:48 GMT+09:00, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >Dear all, > >Given that there are references amongst the Internet Governance >community from time to time suggesting that cybercrime is an ‘orphan >issue’, and for those unfamiliar with the alphabet soup of UN agencies >as regards criminal justice issues, there is an agency called the UN >Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). UNODC is one of the main venues >where issues like cybercrime should be (and actually are) discussed, >rather than ITU with its different mandate. Of course others like >EUROPOL and INTERPOL are also very important. > >UNODC have a report, the Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime that is >really worth a read. In particular, Chapter 7 on international >cooperation is particularly worth reading (it is a big document). > >UNODC are also the secretariat of perhaps the most modern and >comprehensive international agreement on transnational crime, the >United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the >Protocols Thereto. > >For those of you interested in the view of the agency on human rights >as it relates to its mandate, their view on that may be found here. > >It seems to me that for those of us at Plenipot emphasising (often) >that there are venues where the Internet dimension of key issues like >crime and child protection are discussed, and more to the point, the >places they’re discussed actually have as a core part of their mandate >to work on them. ITU should of course be involved and engaged, but they >should not be leading, either formally or informally, for the simple >reason that they don’t have either the mandate nor the expertise. > >Of course, there are issues with respect to non-governmental engagement >processes, but that to my mind is a separate issue, just as it is at >ITU (which is not to trivialise the importance of that aspect of things >at all). > >Regards, Nick > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Oct 5 16:00:42 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 20:00:42 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <54300582.4030002@itforchange.net>,<5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <195f1d72b19e4f7b9bb2c5f66c9b7dae@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> Re net neutrality regulation merits and demerits, this post re 'Why is network neutrality like playing chess with a pigeon?' might be of interest in this context of what and when to regulate the Internet. http://www.martingeddes.com/network-neutrality-like-pigeons-playing-chess/ It could be taken to be from a Scotsman's/nearly independent small state point of view....of statistical multiplexing ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org on behalf of Milton L Mueller Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2014 2:23 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: RE: [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Throughout this email, you seamlessly move between UN based international law making and US law making, which may get forced on the world bec of the US's economic and technical might, as if there isnt any real substantive difference between the two... MM: Nope. I make it very clear when I am talking about one or the other. Your point was “the U.S.” was preventing us from talking about certain issues. My contention was simply that the U.S. is talking about those things extensively at its own domestic level, and that indeed, many of those dialogues originated in the U.S. and went transnational. No confusion as to levels. When did I say there is no global discussion on net neutrality ? MM: In your original post. Glad to see you backing off here. ... As for the resistance to it and the resources thrown in for that sake I have historical details of how an NN debate and position forming got resisted on the IGC list as well in the MAG, for years, before it was finally taken up this year, MM: Another factual error. See this, a NN workshop from 2011: http://intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article?id=883:ig4d-workshop-183-a-possible-framework-for-global-net-neutrality Yes, I know the European Commission as well as Council of Europe has been working on it, and I have participated especially in the latter's effort. MM: So apparently the “US” effort to prevent discussion has failed there, too. Well, yes. How much ever may I like to, we are just not able to come off the colonial and post colonial yoke. Dont we still take everything of worth from the west? MM: A typical Parminderism. Someone notes the irony of you claiming the “the U.S.” is stopping us from discussing an issue that is being actively discussed in large part because of US domestic politics, and you transmute that into a claim that everything of worth originates from the West. Apart from US and its corporate allies being the chief instigators for filtering the debates at the IGF, MM: The chief instigators of filtering debates at the IGF are those who don’t want to disturb the IG status quo, as you know well. But that camp includes people in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia as well as “the U.S.” I’ve run up against those filters as much as you have, btw, only about 5 years before you. Ask yourself why I wasn’t asked to be on the IANA transition panel at either Netmundial or IGF, for example. But I am from the US. Why didn’t they welcome a fellow imperialist hegemonic white male? How do you explain this, my friend? Maybe there are substantive policy differences at stake that cannot be reduced to 1970s-vintage state-centric worldviews? Maybe “the US” is the wrong label to be using to characterize your enemies? Your whole mentality is still locked into the nation-state mindset. The US rules the global Internet, politically and economically . Any civil society actor whose chief aim is a better distribution of power (that at least is what civil society used to be) would naturally make the US as its chief target. MM: But redistributing power to whom, and for what purpose? First, it is obvious that you are talking exclusively about a redistribution of power among nation-states – an approach that is intrinsically hostile to civil society. Further, I don’t think a redistribution that, say, strengthens the Russian or Chinese states is anything to get excited about – or haven’t you kept your eyes on what is happening in Hong Kong? Perhaps you will follow Putin and Xi and blame all the HK unrest of “the U.S.”? All part of our attempt to maintain global hegemony. So let’s suppress freedom and democracy in Hong Kong so we have a better distribution of power? I don’t think strengthening the Indian or Turkish or South African states is such a great idea, either. All of them seem to be more interested in Internet control than anything else. Again I ask you to frame your debate and discourse in terms of substantive policy choices and not polarized power blocs centered on nation-states. Your mode of discourse is essentially a Cold War mentality, where our political choices are centered on being for or against the US. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Oct 23 06:41:53 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:41:53 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Message-ID: Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental processes? They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing transparency,  inclusion and accountability is needed for both.  Anriette Sent from Samsung Mobile
-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Hill
Date:23/10/2014 11:37 (GMT+02:00)
To: michael gurstein ,'Milton L Mueller'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,'IRP' ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations
Milton says: "I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule." In contrast, I think that it might be worth trying the good old intergovernmental system, despite its defects, given that the "private sector-based MS institutions" have failed to solve the urgent issues identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004: the asymmetric role of the US government, the relatively high cost of Internet connectivity in developing countries, and the lack of security. Sorry to be repetitive, but please see: http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc and http://newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depress ion-information-technology-and-economic-crisis Further, "majority rule" is an element of democracy, but it is not the only element. On the contrary, respect for human rights is a fundamental element, and it is that element, together with the rule of law (which includes due process), that protects minorities from undue oppression by majorities. Until we create a full fledged "Internet nation", we are stuck with the nations that we have, and we should use their good features while striving to correct their bad features. Calling for an abrogation of state involvement in the absence of alternatives that ensure democracy, and social and economic justice, is not something that I can support. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 22:35 To: 'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including through their representative governance structures most of which at least nominally have presented themselves as "democracies". True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue, self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western, technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites. But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties lie.. M From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM To: 'michael gurstein' Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 23 07:17:29 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:17:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> Message-ID: <20141023131729.26791c06@quill> Many thanks, Anne, for your detailed response and explanation. I would like to hereby request permission review the archive. I'm willing to promise to not disclose or discuss with any third parties any information of the kind that you have referred to below as being sensitive and the reason for not having a fully open archive, unless and until said information also becomes available to me through some other channel (such as e.g. WCITleaks.) [Nota bene my willingness to agree in this particular situation to such a non-disclosure commitment should not be read as an agreement in principle to some BestBits type processes being less than fully open. It's just because I don't intend to start a general public discussion of that issue of openness at the current point in time.] In case an introduction is needed: I'm a German citizen, living in Switzerland since a long time, and I'm an advocate for human rights and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). I've participated in many Internet governance related discourses since a long time, for example as a participant in the DRUMS working group at IETF which led to RFCs 2821 and 2822, as a participant of the first two BestBits meetings (but not the most recent one), as the initiator of the process that led to the formation of the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), and more recently as a co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC). Greetings, Norbert On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:51:11 +0200 Anne Jellema wrote: > The pre-IGF BB meeting in Istanbul (report on the BB website) agreed > on the creation of three fluid working groups. Carolina's note on the > outcomes of this meeting, sent to the Best Bits list on 9 September, > outlined these groups and who to contact if you wanted to join. > Snippet below: > > > > - *ITU working group:* A group of volunteers (see the list in > > the BB report) has been formed. If you'd like to join, please > > contact Anne Jellema and myself. > > > > > About 30 people requested to join the ITU working group, were duly > added and introduced themselves to the group; no one who asked was > turned down. > > The group decided not to open its email list archive. Many of the > group members are participating in government delegations, which is a > valuable source of information and intelligence that CS needs for > effective advocacy (especially in the ITU context where access to > documents is highly restricted), but requires that you accept a duty > to treat that information with great care. Those on delegations felt > that there was some of this information that they could responsibly > share with a group of 30 people whose identities, affiliations and > reasons for participating in the group they knew, but not with an > open mailing list of 370 people. > > Second, as mentioned above and also stressed in my note to the list > the other day, this was a group of volunteers who prepared a > statement and opened it to the wider BB list for endorsement (or > not). The statement has not been issued in the name of "civil > society" or "Best Bits" but only in the name of the organisations who > chose to sign it. > > I hope that answers your questions but feel free to follow up. > > Best, > Anne > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:38:08 +0200 > > Anne Jellema wrote on the BestBits list: > > > > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to > > > try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. > > > > May I ask some questions about this?: > > > > Was this an open process which any interested civil society person > > would have been accepted to join upon request? > > > > Are there publicly accessible mailing list archives somewhere? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 07:45:27 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:45:27 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:06 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Can we take it then that those who have signed on to this statement or who > have elsewhere indicated a full and unquestioning support for MSism in > Internet Governance (including of course countries such as the USA who are > actively promoting MSism in all venues) are in agreement with Milton’s > definition of Multistakeholderism as governance by “private sector-based MS > institutions”? No. And further that these proponents of MSism have renounced a > belief in democracy (as in rule by and for the people) as the foundation of > governance in the Internet (and presumably other) governance spaces? No. You have a fundamental (willful?) misunderstanding of MSism and the history of how inter-networking has been cooperatively coordinated. Rgds, McTim From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 08:20:28 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 05:20:28 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> Since I'm not discussing "how inter-networking has been cooperatively coordinated" I'm not sure how whether I understand this or that makes any difference here. If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. While it may have its roots in various aspects of Internet development MSism's ambitions (through its proponents) are very much beyond that. Good to hear that you are not in agreement with Milton's definition, perhaps you would be willing to offer an alternative. And glad to hear that you have a belief in democracy as the "foundation of governance in the Internet (and presumably other) governance spaces" perhaps we could then collaborate on how to make democracy work more effectively in the variety of emerging governance spaces for the Internet and elsewhere? M -----Original Message----- From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:45 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anne Jellema; Norbert Bollow; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Michael, On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:06 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Can we take it then that those who have signed on to this statement or > who have elsewhere indicated a full and unquestioning support for > MSism in Internet Governance (including of course countries such as > the USA who are actively promoting MSism in all venues) are in > agreement with Milton’s definition of Multistakeholderism as > governance by “private sector-based MS institutions”? No. And further that these proponents of MSism have renounced a > belief in democracy (as in rule by and for the people) as the > foundation of governance in the Internet (and presumably other) governance spaces? No. You have a fundamental (willful?) misunderstanding of MSism and the history of how inter-networking has been cooperatively coordinated. Rgds, McTim From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 08:46:35 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 05:46:35 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <013f01cfeebf$6413b0d0$2c3b1270$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 2:22 AM To: Niels ten Oever; parminder; michael gurstein; 'Anne Jellema' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Please see below. Thanks and best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Niels ten Oever [mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org] > Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 19:37 > To: parminder; michael gurstein; 'Anne Jellema'; rhill at hill-a.ch > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: > 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Dear Parminder, > > I am a bit amazed that you first make a point on how we should > substantively discuss issues, whereas you post this polemic directly > after. And I'm amazed that such an unbalanced statement is produced by a process that I never heard of. So it seems perfectly appropriate to me that those of us who were surprised by that statement make public comments about it. > > It's perhaps slightly ironic that some of the people that you accuse > of pushing the neo-liberal model were exactly the ones at ICANN51 in > LA pushing for a human rights mechanism within ICANN. To me, the first human rights mechanism to push for is democracy, that is the right of everyone to take part in public policiy decisions, either directly or through freely chosen representatives. So I'd like to see proposals to move ICANN in that direction, for example by making it a membership organization accountable to its members. > > I am surprised that you see discussing issues of content and privacy > at the ITU a part of evolving democratic governance. The ITU is not > nearly transparent enough for this to be an appropriate venue to > discuss this. We agree that the ITU must become more open and transparent. But that is the case of all other forums that might be candidates for discussing such issues. For example, WIPO did not accept the Pirate Party's request for admission as an observer. The opposition came from the USA. So the discussion in ITU should be (1) it must become more open and transparent and (2) it should do this or that. If you don't want the ITU to discuss the issues, then who should discuss the issues? I suppose that you might refer to what are called multi-stakeholder forums such as Netmundial or IGF. But we all know that those forums cannot make tough decisions. Look at what happened at Netmundial regarding mass surveillance (reaffirmed language agreed in the UN General Assembly) and net neutrality (agreed that it is an issue to be further studied). So what forum is proposed in which tough decisions can be made? >Surveillance is not just an attack on infrastructure, it is a serious >interference with the human right to privacy. The ITU has not got >sufficient competence when it comes to human rights. > Discussing privacy violations and surveillance should start with the >UN Human Rights Council. The discussions in the Human Rights Council have taken place, and the conclusions are, as we all know, clear: mass surveillance must be stopped. So it is no longer a question of starting discussions. It is a question of taking effective measures to end this violation of human rights. Secrecy (meaning privacy) of telecommunications has been a fundamental concept from the inception of telecommunications. An article to that effect was included in the 1865 treaty that created the ITU and has been present in the ITU Constitution ever since. At present, the article reads as follows: ARTICLE 37 - Secrecy of Telecommunications 1 Member States agree to take all possible measures, compatible with the system of telecommunication used, with a view to ensuring the secrecy of international correspondence. 2 Nevertheless, they reserve the right to communicate such correspondence to the competent authorities in order to ensure the application of their national laws or the execution of international conventions to which they are parties. I am among those who believe that the current language in the ITU Constitution is inadequate and should be improved. Some concrete proposals to that effect have been made, see for example: http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/HCHR_report_final.pdf I would have expected at least acknowlegement of the laudable intent of such proposals, if not outright support. > > Saying that the ITU is not the right platform to discuss this is not > at all the same thing as saying that this issue should be left to the > market or the US government (or five/nine-eyes for that matter). Why shouldn't the issue be discussed in ITU, as well as in all other appropriate forums? Surely there is no harm in making it clear in all possible forums that mass surveillance must end. Just as we must make it clear in all possible forums that censorship must end. And that social and economic justice must prevail. >And I > would even say that it is an deliberate misrepresentation that does >not help the substantive discussion, and the deep thinking that is >indeed needed, any further. I'd now like to turn in more detail to a couple of specific areas of the statement that you are defending. Spectrum policy =============== The statement that you are defending call on the ITU to give high priority to the development and implementation of license exempt global standards for dynamic spectrum access. In case people don't know, that topic is more commonly referred to as "white spaces" and it is about using a portion of the frequency band that has been deliberately left unused in order to minimize interference, see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio) Whether or not it makes sense to allow such use is very much a national matter (in fact maybe even a local matter). Which does not mean that it should not be discussed in ITU: indeed, harmonization of national practices is the very reason why intergovernmental bodies exist. But I would have expected civil society to consider the economic aspects of this issue. It is widely accepted that radio frequencies are a public good, to be managed in the interests of all citizens. And it is common for states to derive revenue from the commercial use of certain frequencies. So, for example, a civil society position could be that "white space" should not be made freely accessible, but should be subject to auctions. Or maybe not, but for sure the matter deserves some discussion. For more on the commercial aspects of this issue, see for example: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/white-space-the-next-internet-disruption-10-things-to-know/ It is also worth noting that Google is quite involved in this, see: http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-approves-googles-white-space-database-operation/ International Connection ======================== The statement that you are defending essentially calls on the ITU not to take any steps that would address the cost of international Internet connectivity. Yet those costs have long been considered to be an issue that has hampered access to the Internet in developing countries, see: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com03/iic/ http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-D.50-201305-I!Sup2 For sure, some take the view that purely national measures are sufficient, which is what your statement says, but that is by no means a consensus view. On the contrary, it is the view of developed countries, whose position is no doubt influenced by the economic interests of their large private operators. I am surprised that civil society is overtly taking the side of big businesss in this debate. Similar comments apply to some of the other portions of the statement that you are defending, but I will stop here (at least for now). > > Best, > > Niels > > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 10/22/2014 07:19 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what a > > neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just read > > the below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out rather > > well > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/inter > net-operations-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/ > > > > > > > > It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. > > There can simply be no doubt in it. > > > > And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at > > this crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even painfully > > slow) evolving democratic governance of our collective global > > affairs including the Internet, or shifting over to neoliberal > > governance by the elite.. And if they side with this structural > > shift to neolib governance today, it will be for keeps. > > We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. At the > > very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of us. > > > > parminder > > > > parminder > > > > > > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> > >> Further to Parminder’s comments below. > >> > >> I recently published a blogpost > >> > holderism-competing-models-of-governance/> > >> > >> > (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic > >> model of “governance by and for the people” is in direct > >> conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of > >> “governance by and for stakeholders”. > >> > >> I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in > >> such a way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a > >> value in simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation > >> that often masks fundamental positions and values. > >> > >> I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue > >> more broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a > >> democratic approach to governance including in areas as central to > >> our experience, well-being and future as the Internet and those who > >> would give this governance over to decision making by those with > >> specific “interests/stakes” in the outcome (and where the broad > >> public interest if represented at all would be only one among many > >> such competing “stakes”) is a fundamental one. > >> > >> It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of “civil > >> society” and others opting for a position that does not support > >> democracy and democratic governance however and in what manner that > >> might be achieved. > >> > >> M > >> > >> *From:*IRP > >> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On > >> Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM > >> *To:* Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch *Cc:* > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > >> forum at justnetcoalition.org *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - > >> Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > >> Plenipot joint recommendations > >> > >> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >> > >> Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware > >> that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for > >> holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully > >> respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed > >> its point of view in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I > >> found interesting and valuable. > >> > >> In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your > >> criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely > >> accurate reading of its content: > >> > >> - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free > >> markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should > >> retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates > >> where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service > >> and promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations > >> that have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net > >> neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) level. > >> > >> - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should > >> take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the > >> "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global > >> governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for > >> the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and > >> collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and > >> multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think > >> are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges > >> ahead. > >> > >> That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" > >> was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as > >> proposed by Jeanette. > >> > >> I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views > >> can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to > >> find the common ground between differing positions. > >> > >> > >> Dear Anne > >> > >> Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage > >> on this discussion. But my present email will only make one point, > >> about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which your > >> email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that manner, > >> but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political criticism in > >> these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean > >> personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must recognise > >> that civil society work is a work of strong conviction and > >> submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the world > >> they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the realisation > >> of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who really cares, > >> the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on all sides of > >> what could become a political divide. And such a political divide > >> is as possible, even likely, in the civil society space, as in the > >> conventional political space. However, for instance in India, which > >> has a rather high level of professional in traditional political > >> space, at least at the national level, political personalities are > >> able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their political > >> positions and counter positions without it being taken as being > >> inappropriately uncivil or any such thing. > >> > >> I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because > >> many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from > >> a core political civil society background, and so I an really not > >> talking about you.) I also say it because I and people that I work > >> with feel that the present position that is being proposed on the > >> BestBits platform a major political statement that we find > >> extremely problematic and something that sets a solid tone for a > >> neoliberal paradigm for the emerging Internet-mediated society. In > >> that respect its impact on the world, especially in terms of > >> democracy, equity and social justice is going to be far reaching, > >> and these are the corner stone canons of our work. And therefore > >> we will strongly contest it, with all means at our disposal. > >> > >> I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above > >> email. > >> > >> best regards parminder > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Anne > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill >> > wrote: > >> > >> I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his > >> comments. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Richard > >> > >> -----Original Message----- *From:* Forum > >> [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org > >> ]*On Behalf Of > >> *parminder *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 *To:* > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> ; > >> forum at justnetcoalition.org ; > >> IRP *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour > >> sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > >> > >> > >> I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. > >> However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes > >> there are many very important global Internet policy issues, and > >> then says that the ITU should not take them up, but tells us > >> nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a recipe for, > >> or at least, towards a political governance free world, the kind > >> one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the World > >> Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). > >> > >> I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important > >> Internet policy issues at the global level or some other democratic > >> global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable that they be > >> just left hanging out there, which only allows those who have the > >> greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the US based > >> economic and political establishment, to carry on consolidating > >> their power. This statement for me is simply an expression of > >> support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly > >> oppose it. > >> > >> To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); > >> > >> Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing > >> countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global > >> market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a > >> major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all > >> progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global > >> interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'. > >> This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such > >> things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, > >> or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not > >> clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express > >> mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It > >> appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which > >> will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks > >> that the proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask > >> for the closing down of the ITU. > >> > >> Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a > >> treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post > >> Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague > >> Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground as > >> far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What other > >> than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in this > >> regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are ready > >> to allow the powerful to do what they may? > >> Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? > >> Civil society must answer these questions. > >> > >> The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN > >> Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. > >> That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first > >> committee’s work is much less participative (of other > >> stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, > >> other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see when we > >> have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now > >> the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing > >> it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty > >> will require the expertise of ITU which is the agency that has > >> hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply obstructionist > >> attitude to global governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very > >> unequal, unfair and unjust world. > >> Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly > >> signing on this rather dangerous statement. > >> > >> The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security > >> treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts and > >> principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area > >> of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give up in > >> these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance? > >> Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process > >> towards development of global principles and agreements and not a > >> as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can > >> understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil > >> society? > >> > >> Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet > >> power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you > >> where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will > >> simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... > >> > >> Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of > >> all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is > >> very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global > >> stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free reign, > >> and the little policy that needs to be made is made at plurilateral > >> forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (see > >> for instance, just the day before's news, > >> http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to regulate > >> global IP TV transmissions). > >> > >> Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of > >> the economically and politically powerful... > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >> > >> Dear colleagues > >> > >> As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try > >> to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. > >> We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in > >> the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). > >> Our second and harder task was to develop positions on some of the > >> most important substantive issues before the conference. The output > >> of this second phase of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is > >> now available for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: > >> > >> *http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes* > >> > >> The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference > >> proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both > >> because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because > >> many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the day. > >> As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up against the > >> start of the Plenipot itself. > >> > >> It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so > >> we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however > >> someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" > >> issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me > >> personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve > >> this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid > >> working group on whether to accept this edit. > >> > >> Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not > >> presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on > >> behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the > >> specific organisations endorsing. > >> > >> If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your > >> logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org > >> ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) > >> tomorrow, 21 Oct. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list > >> Forum at justnetcoalition.org > >> http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition > >> .org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > - -- > >> > >> 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* > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list > >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >> > >> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, > > visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUR+s/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpBSMH/0PR5KgEQ1rHeUZTUO7b3YWi > kvYktLQp3oIwMwepxgahmNLZww8vWE3P70z/gLyNc7ZG0JlO2o0W6hgyRlpZzkWk > 4t9u1ryOZ/CXWYLd53zQ13bPZuDeqAud3hheGIsozCdGkbXZpvMuznc1d+S2mTBC > fwnqggGTUfpRmcIti5gR+rUmwtqFnKALz1+GfPyqBxvt8IeqvZGTRzT5kg/qxj0e > wmuYgMBqicTfb42b2McAT5SCsm12JXhyM9EpHLZefcgClbh8VsVA/LqOwnbMLVgy > 1jLTLGeGxDwmWrerYKVlbNhaeTYZdM7DA7Rp3miKirMoe7kBbTDexEkM2Mw2KWM= > =b/3V > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 08:46:35 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 05:46:35 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014001cfeebf$65670bd0$30352370$@gmail.com> I of course, agree with your statement but please note that I was discussing processes of “democratic governance” and not as you mistakenly suggest, “intergovernmental processes”. Having the foundation of governance based in “democratic processes” is most certainly mutually exclusive from multistakeholder governance processes based in elite self-selection or as in Milton’s formulation "private sector-based MS institutions".. M October 23, 2014 3:42 AM To: rhill at hill-a.ch; michael gurstein; 'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental processes? They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing transparency, inclusion and accountability is needed for both. Anriette Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Richard Hill Date:23/10/2014 11:37 (GMT+02:00) To: michael gurstein ,'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,'IRP' ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Milton says: "I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule." In contrast, I think that it might be worth trying the good old intergovernmental system, despite its defects, given that the "private sector-based MS institutions" have failed to solve the urgent issues identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004: the asymmetric role of the US government, the relatively high cost of Internet connectivity in developing countries, and the lack of security. Sorry to be repetitive, but please see: http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc and http://newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depress ion-information-technology-and-economic-crisis Further, "majority rule" is an element of democracy, but it is not the only element. On the contrary, respect for human rights is a fundamental element, and it is that element, together with the rule of law (which includes due process), that protects minorities from undue oppression by majorities. Until we create a full fledged "Internet nation", we are stuck with the nations that we have, and we should use their good features while striving to correct their bad features. Calling for an abrogation of state involvement in the absence of alternatives that ensure democracy, and social and economic justice, is not something that I can support. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 22:35 To: 'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including through their representative governance structures most of which at least nominally have presented themselves as "democracies". True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue, self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western, technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites. But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties lie.. M From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM To: 'michael gurstein' Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 08:56:44 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:56:44 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:20 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Since I'm not discussing "how inter-networking has been cooperatively coordinated" You most certainly are. There are certainly different flavors of MSism, so the MSism of the IETF or the RIRs is certainly different than the MSism of ICANN which is also not the same as the MSism practiced by the IGF. I'm not sure how whether I understand this or that makes any difference here. If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I have read them and understand your position. I just don't buy it, as it does not describe my experiences of the last 15 years. While it may have its roots in various aspects of Internet development MSism's ambitions (through its proponents) are very much beyond that. > > Good to hear that you are not in agreement with Milton's definition, perhaps you would be willing to offer an alternative. My disagreement with MM is that "private sector" led. He may mean by that private non-profits, but to my mind the Internet coordination community is a Civil Society exercise, not Private Sector (how I understand the term) led. > > And glad to hear that you have a belief in democracy as the "foundation of governance in the Internet My belief is that people can exercise direct democracy in Internet Governance without being represented. People are quite capable of representing themselves. This is the way it has worked for the last 40 years. From lea at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 23 10:58:28 2014 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:58:28 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] ITU PP meeting with SG tomorrow Message-ID: Dear all, Greetings from Busan. As some of you may know, a first of three meetings between civil society and the outgoing ITU Secretary General Toure is scheduled for tomorrow morning here in Busan. Some of us here will try to attend this meeting. As we are on national delegations, we are limited in what we can say, especially since the meeting is being webcast. However, we plan to follow up on the asks addressed in the letter on ITU PP openness and transparency which many of you here endorsed. In particular, we plan to follow up on the asks of facilitating registration of on-site observers, holding regular meetings with CS, and setting up an online mechanism for submitting information documents to the Conference. If there are any additional questions related to ITU openness and transparency you would like us to raise - let us know - we will do our best to raise them at this meeting. Due to delegation rules we most likely won't be in a position to raise any issues related to substantive discussions taking place at the PP. Apologies for the short notice. This meeting was confirmed at the last minute - the ITU sent the official invites to national delegations who then extended them to their civil society reps (or in some cases - didn't). The good news is that two additional meetings with civil society are planned for weeks 2 and 3, so we will hopefully be able to be more coordinated going into those meetings. To watch the webcast of the meeting, here is the link: http://bit.ly/1yibChR Warm wishes, Lea & Joana *Lea Kaspar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 12:21:46 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:21:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <020c01cfeedd$723717b0$56a54710$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:54 AM To: Baudouin Schombe; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; michael gurstein; Milton L Mueller; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; JNC Forum Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Paragraph 34 of the Tunis Agenda reads: "34. A working definition of Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The "respective roles" are outlined in paragraph 35, which includes the following: "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." The only use of the expression "equal footing" is found in paragraph 69, where it refers to equal footing among governments. This language was specifically addressing the asymmetric role of the US government. Thus I cannot agree with Wolfgang's interpetation to the effect that the WSIS outcomes imply that Internet governance should be based on a model in which stakeholders operate on equal footing and decisions are made by rough consensus and without veto rights. Note that, at present, in the formal treaty-making processes, each state in effect has veto rights, because no treaty binds a state unless it has been ratified at the national level. In democratic countries, ratification is usually an act of parliament. That is, there is democratic control over treaties and their effects. This is not just theory, it is practice: ACTA was defeated by parliaments. So removing "veto rights" would, in my view, be undemocratic, because states would then be bound by decisions taken by "rough consensus" in some international forum, and the citizens of states could not challenge those decisions through their normal democratic processes. For example, we would all be stuck with ACTA. Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda describes the IGF. But it must be understood in context, that is, in relation with paragraphs 34 and 35. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Baudouin Schombe [mailto:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com] Sent: jeudi, 23. octobre 2014 14:44 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; rhill at hill-a.ch; michael gurstein; Milton L Mueller; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; IRP; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations "The key reference is the working definition of Internet Governance from the Tunis Agenda, which has stated that "decision making procedures" with regard to Internet Governance has to be "shared" among all stakeholders. This means that there is no "Hierarchie Structure" among the stakeholders but a "Network Structure" where stakeholders operate in their respective roles on equal footing and has to work hand in Hand towards rough consensus and without veto rights". I fully support this Wolfgang argument . In my opinion, I think the rules of the games have already been defined since 2003 and 2005, more specifically, in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda. Should we still questioning a document which was approved by all members of the United Nations? I realize that this is also from this period that the multi-stakeholder approach arose. . Currently our platforms or discussion networks have adopted this approach even if the part of governments and private sectors, it is not yet so accepted. In the field of digital technology, it is an inescapable approach. 2014-10-23 13:03 GMT+02:00 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : The Intergovernmental organizations and the related intergovernmental treaty system (as the ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO etc.) will continue to play a specific role but it is now embedded in a multistakeholder environment. The key reference is the working definition of Internet Governance from the Tunis Agenda, which has stated that "decision making procedures" with regard to Internet Governance has to be "shared" among all stakeholders. This means that there is no "Hierarchie Structure" among the stakeholders but a "Network Structure" where stakeholders operate in their respective roles on equal footing and has to work hand in Hand towards rough consensus and without veto rights. This does not exclude that the individual stakeholder groups make their own arrangements among themselves which can include also arrangements among governments in form of treaties under international law. wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Do 23.10.2014 12:41 An: rhill at hill-a.ch; michael gurstein; 'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Betreff: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental processes? They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing transparency, inclusion and accountability is needed for both. Anriette Sent from Samsung Mobile
-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Hill
Date:23/10/2014 11:37 (GMT+02:00)
To: michael gurstein ,'Milton L Mueller'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,'IRP' ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations
Milton says: "I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule." In contrast, I think that it might be worth trying the good old intergovernmental system, despite its defects, given that the "private sector-based MS institutions" have failed to solve the urgent issues identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004: the asymmetric role of the US government, the relatively high cost of Internet connectivity in developing countries, and the lack of security. Sorry to be repetitive, but please see: http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc and http://newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depress ion-information-technology-and-economic-crisis Further, "majority rule" is an element of democracy, but it is not the only element. On the contrary, respect for human rights is a fundamental element, and it is that element, together with the rule of law (which includes due process), that protects minorities from undue oppression by majorities. Until we create a full fledged "Internet nation", we are stuck with the nations that we have, and we should use their good features while striving to correct their bad features. Calling for an abrogation of state involvement in the absence of alternatives that ensure democracy, and social and economic justice, is not something that I can support. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 22:35 To: 'Milton L Mueller' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including through their representative governance structures most of which at least nominally have presented themselves as "democracies". True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue, self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western, technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites. But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties lie.. M From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM To: 'michael gurstein' Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure majority rule. Milton L. Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC ICANN/AFRALO Member ISOC Member Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 12:30:28 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:30:28 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <022b01cfeede$a840c080$f8c24180$@gmail.com> McTim, It seems to me we've had a similar discussion in the past. What I understand from you below is that you are taking the experience/knowledge of the "classical" IETF MS process as the subject of my post. In fact, as you know I know little about the "classical" MS processes. Rather I am commenting on the way in which MSism has become a competing model/ideology of governance (widely expounded for broad policy application by the USG and its allies including here in CS) to the conventional one based on democratic processes. The connection between this MSism and the "classical" MSism is that by using the same name and some of the same elements those who are espousing the MSist ideology are able to draw on the wide acceptance and respect for the classical MSist processes including dare I say having access to a fairly large and highly vocal set of supporters such as yourself. As well, without knowing in any detail I would be extremely surprised if those who worked in/with classical MSist processes saw them, as having a broad base of legitimacy in self-selecting elite driven non-democratic “stake”holder societal decision making/governance as appears to be the basis of the current MSist model and as I discuss in the blogpost. M -----Original Message----- From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:57 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anne Jellema; Norbert Bollow; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:20 AM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > Since I'm not discussing "how inter-networking has been cooperatively coordinated" You most certainly are. There are certainly different flavors of MSism, so the MSism of the IETF or the RIRs is certainly different than the MSism of ICANN which is also not the same as the MSism practiced by the IGF. I'm not sure how whether I understand this or that makes any difference here. If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I have read them and understand your position. I just don't buy it, as it does not describe my experiences of the last 15 years. While it may have its roots in various aspects of Internet development MSism's ambitions (through its proponents) are very much beyond that. > > Good to hear that you are not in agreement with Milton's definition, perhaps you would be willing to offer an alternative. My disagreement with MM is that "private sector" led. He may mean by that private non-profits, but to my mind the Internet coordination community is a Civil Society exercise, not Private Sector (how I understand the term) led. > > And glad to hear that you have a belief in democracy as the > "foundation of governance in the Internet My belief is that people can exercise direct democracy in Internet Governance without being represented. People are quite capable of representing themselves. This is the way it has worked for the last 40 years. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Oct 6 17:33:27 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:33:27 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FYI - call for Public Interest Registry NGO Community Advisory Council Message-ID: <54330AA7.1020706@acm.org> Hi, PIR (Public Interest registry), has put out a call for its advisory council for .ngo/.ong The call can be found at: http://pir.org/ngo-community-advisory-council-nominations/ Please pass it on. avri (they are one of my clients and I am helping them set this up. they are also non-profit) From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Oct 23 13:03:13 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:03:13 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Richard for refreshing every one's memory with clarity and verified facts. MSism is a great invention because: - it dilutes everything into a liquid form where everything turns into an x-thing - it says one day that MS started with the setting of the Tunis Agenda, the next minute it says that the entire Internet was done under a MS approach. (see WK on this) - it opposes any form of political approach/thinking/reflection of the Internet governance debate, something rather very democratic, opposing by the same token a debate rightfully made of different views. MS refuses confrontation, often claiming that a different view is a personal aggression. - it looks for positive wording, trying to avoid the hard talks and hard points. "Please no diverging views". - it tends to be self satisfied, as well as self nominated. - it assimilates a +1 with a +1 billion voices - it tends to assimilate a corp and a gov - it imagines that it has any kind of representativity of the Internet users community - it claims that countries have their role, but only home, ignoring that an international treaty would be to the benefit of more people on earth, pushing other states to join the club of the willing - it refuses to admit that the UN system has endorsed the declaration of human rights as part of its DNA, long before any corp even thought about it. It also means that any other UN agency or affiliated organization such as the ITU have also endorsed that transnational thinking and philosophy - it denies the fact that since its inception in San Francisco during WWII, the UN has been a dramatic contributor to world peace and development, even though many vested interests have kept the world in a state of crisis for the benefit of a few. - It maintains a state of asymmetry in terms of who controls the Internet (I do not need to be more precise here, I believe) - It maintains division within civil society, one day flattering CS by telling that CS has a great role, the next day ignoring it by organizing behind close doors meetings where CS are not even convened (remember the process leading to the MS NetMundial meeting, the I* meeting organized for better coordination, the WEF initiative..., all beautiful products of MS) - It constantly breaks the reflection over IG by dividing it into separate issues, when they all belong to the same pot (political IG of global reach, transnational by nature). "The ITU is an horror", according to MSists, who suggest to move parts of the debate to other venues, claiming that HR should be discussed at HCR, that intellectual rights should be discussed at WIPO, that trade agreements at WTO, cybercrime at Interpol or another UN body... All of that is very smart and sometimes indicated. At the end of the day, it diverts attention of CS and breaks its intelligence and limited means into many fronts where and when at the core of IG, nothing changes. IG is a political debate, but part of it could rightfully be seen as part of a discussion of global and international magnitude. The IGF, a UN-born initiative under ECOSOC, UNICEF, ITU and others is a dead infant so far, if fundings do not support an honest and decent body of work and team. ICANN with its magnificence and many USD taken from every corner of the planet does not walk to walk for the common good. We all know it. - it doesn't exist but every one who benefits from the current situation (making some money out of that situation) tends to recognize its existence. I suggest to MSists to launch a campaign to bring the debate regarding the high consumption of energy by computers, cloud and other digital niceties, to WMO and UNEP, who both drive the IPCC report. That should be a great deal of talk-talk... More seriously, I do not see an inch of progress coming after NetMundial in the usual suspect SC tribe. Milton had a dream in Istanbul, thanks to the Turkish delices, but again where does that becomes a reality and confront the current domination of the Internet by a few. One cannot think that the WEF show in August 2014 had any significant ability to make a better world and rebalance the current asymmetry. Did the WAF made some money out of that show? NetMundial was calling for roadmaps. Where are they? Where are the great minds? NetMundial has endorsed a democratic MS: was it a mistake? Is it simply impossible to realize? Ayatollah and young talibans of the IG debate are not those claiming for a true democratic approach. Quite the opposite. Those protecting the holy Mecca of digital power should reconsider their own bias. And focus on what is at stake : a fair and decent international governance for the Internet. Jean-Christophe Le 23 oct. 2014 à 17:54, Richard Hill a écrit : > Paragraph 34 of the Tunis Agenda reads: > > "34. A working definition of Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." > > The "respective roles" are outlined in paragraph 35, which includes the following: > > "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." > > The only use of the expression "equal footing" is found in paragraph 69, where it refers to equal footing among governments. This language was specifically addressing the asymmetric role of the US government. > > Thus I cannot agree with Wolfgang's interpetation to the effect that the WSIS outcomes imply that Internet governance should be based on a model in which stakeholders operate on equal footing and decisions are made by rough consensus and without veto rights. > > Note that, at present, in the formal treaty-making processes, each state in effect has veto rights, because no treaty binds a state unless it has been ratified at the national level. In democratic countries, ratification is usually an act of parliament. > > That is, there is democratic control over treaties and their effects. This is not just theory, it is practice: ACTA was defeated by parliaments. > > So removing "veto rights" would, in my view, be undemocratic, because states would then be bound by decisions taken by "rough consensus" in some international forum, and the citizens of states could not challenge those decisions through their normal democratic processes. For example, we would all be stuck with ACTA. > > Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda describes the IGF. But it must be understood in context, that is, in relation with paragraphs 34 and 35. > > Best, > Richard > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Baudouin Schombe [mailto:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com] > Sent: jeudi, 23. octobre 2014 14:44 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; rhill at hill-a.ch; michael gurstein; Milton L Mueller; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; IRP; JNC Forum > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations > > > "The key reference is the working definition of Internet Governance from the Tunis Agenda, which has stated that "decision making procedures" with regard to Internet Governance has to be "shared" among all stakeholders. This means that there is no "Hierarchie Structure" among the stakeholders but a "Network Structure" where stakeholders operate in their respective roles on equal footing and has to work hand in > Hand towards rough consensus and without veto rights". > > > I fully support this Wolfgang argument . In my opinion, I think the rules of the games have already been defined since 2003 and 2005, more specifically, in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda. > Should we still questioning a document which was approved by all members of the United Nations? > I realize that this is also from this period that the multi-stakeholder approach arose. . > Currently our platforms or discussion networks have adopted this approach even if the part of governments and private sectors, it is not yet so accepted. > In the field of digital technology, it is an inescapable approach. > > > 2014-10-23 13:03 GMT+02:00 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > > The Intergovernmental organizations and the related intergovernmental treaty system (as the ITU, WIPO, WTO, UNESCO etc.) will continue to play a specific role but it is now embedded in a multistakeholder environment. The key reference is the working definition of Internet Governance from the Tunis Agenda, which has stated that "decision making procedures" with regard to Internet Governance has to be "shared" among all stakeholders. This means that there is no "Hierarchie Structure" among the stakeholders but a "Network Structure" where stakeholders operate in their respective roles on equal footing and has to work hand in Hand towards rough consensus and without veto rights. This does not exclude that the individual stakeholder groups make their own arrangements among themselves which can include also arrangements among governments in form of treaties under international law. > > > wolfgang > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen > Gesendet: Do 23.10.2014 12:41 > An: rhill at hill-a.ch; michael gurstein; 'Milton L Mueller' > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org > Betreff: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations > > Surely we need both multi stakeholder and intergovernmental processes? They are not mutually exclusive in my view and increasing transparency, inclusion and accountability is needed for both. > > Anriette > > > > Sent from Samsung Mobile > >
-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Hill
Date:23/10/2014 11:37 (GMT+02:00)
To: michael gurstein ,'Milton L Mueller'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net,'IRP' ,governance at lists.igcaucus.org,forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on > period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations
> >
Milton says: > > "I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a better job of that > than anything that will come out of the UN and its clientelist co-optation > of civil society and development groups. And some of these institutions work > better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of communications better > precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old sense of pure > majority rule." > > In contrast, I think that it might be worth trying the good old > intergovernmental system, despite its defects, given that the "private > sector-based MS institutions" have failed to solve the urgent issues > identified by the Working Group on Internet Governance back in 2004: the > asymmetric role of the US government, the relatively high cost of Internet > connectivity in developing countries, and the lack of security. Sorry to be > repetitive, but please see: > > http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc > > and > > http://newsclick.in/international/review-schiller-dan-2014-digital-depress > ion-information-technology-and-economic-crisis > > Further, "majority rule" is an element of democracy, but it is not the only > element. On the contrary, respect for human rights is a fundamental > element, and it is that element, together with the rule of law (which > includes due process), that protects minorities from undue oppression by > majorities. > > Until we create a full fledged "Internet nation", we are stuck with the > nations that we have, and we should use their good features while striving > to correct their bad features. > > Calling for an abrogation of state involvement in the absence of > alternatives that ensure democracy, and social and economic justice, is not > something that I can support. > > Best, > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael > gurstein > Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 22:35 > To: 'Milton L Mueller' > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for > ITUPlenipot joint recommendations > > > Actually Milton, the term is "We the Peoples". recognizing the diversity and > multiplicity of the peoples of the world and presumably their various forms > of governance and aspirations towards efficacy and empowerment including > through their representative governance structures most of which at least > nominally have presented themselves as "democracies". > > True that many states haven't lived up to those early aspirations, (some of > us even remember when the US could, with a straight face present itself as a > fully functioning model democracy) but this is no reason to deny the > legitimacy of those aspirations and instead out of what--cynicism, fatigue, > self-interest, racism, elitism-whatever--opt for governance through > corporate autocracy errr. a multi-stakeholderism dominated by Western, > technocratic, primarily male, overwhelmingly white elites. > > But at least I give you credit for being clear and straightforward in opting > for this form of governance by "private sector-based MS institutions", would > that others in CS were as forthright in admitting where their loyalties > lie.. > > M > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:04 PM > To: 'michael gurstein' > Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; 'IRP'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' > Subject: RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint > recommendations > > The UN has never been about "we the people." It has always been about "we > the states." With nearly half the states in it being nondemocratic, and > international law treating any and all states as sovereign individuals with > equal rights, "democracy" in the UN system means one government, one vote. > > Not 'democratic' in the good sense at all. We can agree on this, however: > > we should find alternative and effective ways of manifesting [snip] > democratic impulses in this new era and with new mechanisms and processes. > > But personally I think private sector-based MS institutions are doing a > better job of that than anything that will come out of the UN and its > clientelist co-optation of civil society and development groups. And some of > these institutions work better and preserve the freedom and autonomy of > communications better precisely because they are _not_ democratic in the old > sense of pure majority rule. > > Milton L. Mueller > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFEC > > ICANN/AFRALO Member > > ISOC Member > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Thu Oct 23 13:53:04 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:53:04 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54494080.6050004@eff.org> On 23/10/2014 8:54 am, Richard Hill wrote: > That is, there is democratic control over treaties and their effects. This is not just theory, it is practice: ACTA was defeated by parliaments. > > So removing "veto rights" would, in my view, be undemocratic, because states would then be bound by decisions taken by "rough consensus" in some international forum, and the citizens of states could not challenge those decisions through their normal democratic processes. For example, we would all be stuck with ACTA. "Multistakeholderism = ACTA Intergovernmentalism = ACTA defeat!" That is the most fanciful thing I have heard for quite some time. ACTA was defeated by civil society, acting within the lobbyist-corrupted democratic system because we had to, but also sometimes outside the system (eg. the leaking of text on Wikileaks, street protests for which some were arrested for civil disobedience). For most of the time, analysts from both inside and outside civil society regarded these efforts as doomed. Only by the skin of our teeth did activists manage to swing the European parliament to vote ACTA down - and there is absolutely no question that if we had worked purely within the system and relied on parliamentarians to reject ACTA on their own initiative, it would be law today. Similarly, can you seriously imagine that ACTA would have any possibility of adoption through a multi-stakeholder process? The only way that is even conceivable is if (like regrettably at NETmundial, where some bad language on intermediaries appeared in the final text mostly out of the blue), there was a last-minute corruption of the process by corporate lobbyists and the governments in their pockets. Many dubious attempts have been made to smear multi-stakeholderism in favour of statist models of Internet governance, but taking credit for the defeat of ACTA has to be one of those most risible. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 14:44:50 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:44:50 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54494080.6050004@eff.org> References: <54494080.6050004@eff.org> Message-ID: <02ec01cfeef1$6ea28f30$4be7ad90$@gmail.com> Jeremy, You and others keep attempting to propagate the completely erroneous meme that the division is between "statists" and "MSist" when in fact the division is between those who believe in democracy as the basis of governance and those who believe in governance by self-appointed elites errr... MSism. I/we have no more sympathy with corrupt and non-democratic governmental systems than you or anyone else. But replacing the anchoring of public policy in a framework of democracy by turning it over to unaccountable and non-transparent government by corporates, their governmental allies and whoever else they happen to invite to the table is hardly a useful substitute. I think the more useful way forward than engaging in these types of slanging matches is to begin working towards effective accountable democratic governance structures and modalities for the age of the Internet. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:53 AM To: rhill at hill-a.ch; Baudouin Schombe; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations On 23/10/2014 8:54 am, Richard Hill wrote: > That is, there is democratic control over treaties and their effects. This is not just theory, it is practice: ACTA was defeated by parliaments. > > So removing "veto rights" would, in my view, be undemocratic, because states would then be bound by decisions taken by "rough consensus" in some international forum, and the citizens of states could not challenge those decisions through their normal democratic processes. For example, we would all be stuck with ACTA. "Multistakeholderism = ACTA Intergovernmentalism = ACTA defeat!" That is the most fanciful thing I have heard for quite some time. ACTA was defeated by civil society, acting within the lobbyist-corrupted democratic system because we had to, but also sometimes outside the system (eg. the leaking of text on Wikileaks, street protests for which some were arrested for civil disobedience). For most of the time, analysts from both inside and outside civil society regarded these efforts as doomed. Only by the skin of our teeth did activists manage to swing the European parliament to vote ACTA down - and there is absolutely no question that if we had worked purely within the system and relied on parliamentarians to reject ACTA on their own initiative, it would be law today. Similarly, can you seriously imagine that ACTA would have any possibility of adoption through a multi-stakeholder process? The only way that is even conceivable is if (like regrettably at NETmundial, where some bad language on intermediaries appeared in the final text mostly out of the blue), there was a last-minute corruption of the process by corporate lobbyists and the governments in their pockets. Many dubious attempts have been made to smear multi-stakeholderism in favour of statist models of Internet governance, but taking credit for the defeat of ACTA has to be one of those most risible. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Oct 23 15:13:06 2014 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:13:06 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C3D063B-D301-499C-9F7C-045A1AE20D5C@post.harvard.edu> It is a pleasure to see a point-by-point de(con)struction of this absurd series of statements, by Chehade. Particularly in view that the Washington Post closed off comment, apparently after only one comment. They would have otherwise, it seems ..., had to tolerate a deluge of derision. Outright laughable - as Richard leads off - is the proposition that the desideratum is decentralization. When ICANN is - obviously - trying every which way to maintain its existing singular, centralized control. Laughable, and so seriously embarrassing. Chehade is not stupid, he knows he is lying. What, just hoping us rubes won't notice? And he has Bell Labs in his resume? How far have the Labs fallen ... David On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:25 AM, "Richard Hill" wrote: > Once again, I agree with Parminder. And I would add the following. > > Fahdi starts the interview by extolling the virtues and positive effects of > the Internet. For sure those exist. But there is also a dark side: > censorship, mass surveillance, exploitation of personal data. Not to > mention the way in which ICTs have been used to deepen not just the digital > divide, but the economic divide between the rich and the less rich (for > which, see Dan Schiller's new book "Digital Depression"). > > Then Fahdi says that "we want Internet governance in a distribute, > polycentric way, as opposed to a centralized, top-down way;". Right. So > that means that the IANA function should be functionally separated, not > centralized as it is at present. And that we should find a way to > decentralize ICANN's control of the root zone file. How about alternate > roots (also called open roots)? > > I find it amazing that the head of what is the most centralized, top-down > structure that have ever been seen in telecommunications apparently does not > realize that ICANN is that structure. > > Fahdi then moves on to say that "If we move everything into one > organization, suddenly it becomes highly centralized. Now, could the ITU > solve a problem or a particular issue? Certainly, if the community decides > it's the best place to do it. But we think that Internet governance should > look like the Internet: highly distributed, highly agile and highly > effective." > > Right. So, in principle, the ITU could address some specific issues. And, > by the way, I'm not aware of anybody that has ever proposed to move > "everything" into the ITU. The proposals that I've seen all refer to > specific issues, even if some are admittedly broad issues. > > Fahdi goes on to say: "Imagine if we had to come up with a treaty to solve > spam?". Gee, we have come up with treaties on copyright, trademark, > patents, trade facilitation, air transport and numerous other issues. So > what's wrong, in principle, with envisaging a treaty to solve spam? Maybe > it won't work in practice, but why not try? > > Fahdi says: "Today, ICANN addresses largely technical issues. But who's > addressing nontechnical issues?". Uhm. Deciding on a process for > implementing new gTLDs does not strike me as a technical issue. Nor do I > see deciding who, if anybody, gets ".amazon" to be a technical issue. > > In fact, as Milton has said for years, ICANN is the economic regulator of > the domain name industry. It does not address technical issues. It > addresses regulatory issues. > > Fahdi then goes on to explain to us how the WEF so-called NETMundial > Initiative will be the mechanism to solve all problems, from protecting > children on the Internet to privacy. > > I'm sure that everybody that will read this E-Mail will agree that this is > preposterous. > > And I cannot resist pointing out that, when asked by the Minister of Rwanda > "Fadi, I want to come up with a policy to protect children online. Can you > point me somewhere? Who's done that? Whom can I contact to tell me how it > works?", Fahdi could have pointed him to the ITU's web site that compiles > exactly that information, see: > > http://www.itu.int/en/cop/Pages/default.aspx > > Fahdi goes on to explan that there are no solutions for web site takedowns. > But actually there are: such takedowns are provided for by national laws and > enforced by national courts. For sure some countries permit far too many > takedowns (for different reasons, e.g. to restrict political speech, or to > protect intellectual property), but there is even a mechanism to challenge > that at the international level, the European Court for Human Rights. For > sure that is a Europe-only body for now (but with a larger membership than > the European Union, because it includes, for example, the Russian > Federation). > > So why not envisage something like that at the global level? Oh sorry, it > involves governments, and that is not good. Right. So courts should not > exist and should not enforce laws. Indeed, laws should not exist, > everything should be regulated by private-law contracts. And those > contracts should be contracts of adhesion that bind users that click, or > even merely access, a web site. > > Surely the people who will read this E-Mail (or at least many of them) do > not wish to live in such a world, where one of the fundaments of democracy > would have ceased to exist: the rule of law. > > Fahdi says: "But if we leave it to every government to codify their own > solution, we'll end up with a fragmented Internet. " Indeed. And that is > precisely why the ITU was created in 1965: to avoid a fragmented telegraphy > system. So, if you don't want the ITU, then you have to reinvent it. Ah > yes, that reinvention is the "multi-stakeholder model". But that model is > not democratic and, contrary to what has often been said, it has not > addressed key issues, see my analysis at: > > http://www.apig.ch/WSIS%20APIG%20statement.doc > > Fahdi says "... the U.S. plays an extremely important role as a role model, > as a reference point to the world. " Indeed. So the US should end mass > surveillance. Failing to do so is sending the wrong message. In particular > because, as Dilma Rousseff has said "In the absence of the right to privacy, > there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no > effective democracy". > > Best, > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: mercredi, 22. octobre 2014 19:20 > To: michael gurstein; 'Anne Jellema'; rhill at hill-a.ch > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour > sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what a > neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just read the > below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out rather well > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operat > ions-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/ > > It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. There can > simply be no doubt in it. > > And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at this > crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even painfully slow) > evolving democratic governance of our collective global affairs including > the Internet, or shifting over to neoliberal governance by the elite.. And > if they side with this structural shift to neolib governance today, it will > be for keeps. We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. > At the very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of us. > > parminder > > parminder > > > > On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Further to Parminder’s comments below. > > I recently published a blogpost (also please not the comments) where I > argued that the democratic model of “governance by and for the people” is in > direct conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of “governance > by and for stakeholders”. > > I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in such a way > is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a value in simplicity > particularly where it removes the obfuscation that often masks fundamental > positions and values. > > I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue more > broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a democratic > approach to governance including in areas as central to our experience, > well-being and future as the Internet and those who would give this > governance over to decision making by those with specific “interests/stakes” > in the outcome (and where the broad public interest if represented at all > would be only one among many such competing “stakes”) is a fundamental one. > > It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of “civil society” > and others opting for a position that does not support democracy and > democratic governance however and in what manner that might be achieved. > > M > > > From: IRP [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On > Behalf Of parminder > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM > To: Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour > sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that > different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding > different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. I was > very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view in its own > proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable. > > In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms of > our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate reading of its > content: > > - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets is > unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain individual > authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where necessary and advisable > in order to ensure universal service and promote robust competition." The > drafters include organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight > for stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) level. > > - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take > responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the "withdrawal of > all internet policy related agenda from the global governance stage"; or > fails to acknowledge any important role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress > the need for coordination and collaboration among UN agencies (including the > ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think > are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges ahead. > > That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was poorly > judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by Jeanette. > > > I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can > continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find the > common ground between differing positions. > > Dear Anne > > Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage on this > discussion. But my present email will only make one point, about the mutual > respectfulness of any discussion, which your email mentions. I am not > saying that you meant it in that manner, but I do often find a hyper > sensitivity to political criticism in these circles and personalisation of > it, here I mean personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must > recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction and > submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the world they'd > like to see, and there are forces that block the realisation of that vision. > Obviously therefore, for anyone who really cares, the feelings involved are > strong... And I mean, on all sides of what could become a political divide. > And such a political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil > society space, as in the conventional political space. However, for instance > in India, which has a rather high level of professional in traditional > political space, at least at the national level, political personalities are > able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their political positions and > counter positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil or > any such thing. > > I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because many > people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from a core > political civil society background, and so I an really not talking about > you.) I also say it because I and people that I work with feel that the > present position that is being proposed on the BestBits platform a major > political statement that we find extremely problematic and something that > sets a solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging > Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the world, > especially in terms of democracy, equity and social justice is going to be > far reaching, and these are the corner stone canons of our work. And > therefore we will strongly contest it, with all means at our disposal. > > I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above email. > > best regards > parminder > > > > Best > Anne > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill wrote: > I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his comments. > > Best, > Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of > parminder > Sent: mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org; IRP > Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period > for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. However, > what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes there are many > very important global Internet policy issues, and then says that the ITU > should not take them up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. > This becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free > world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the > World Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). > > I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important Internet > policy issues at the global level or some other democratic global body takes > them up. However, it is not tenable that they be just left hanging out > there, which only allows those who have the greatest default power on the > Internet, mostly the US based economic and political establishment, to carry > on consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an expression > of support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly > oppose it. > > To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); > > Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing countries > viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global market models for > global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the > stand of all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the > WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the main > 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that issue by declaring > that such things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, > or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear how > even working on the interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from > the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not one > thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In > the circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement should be > bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. > > Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a treaty on > cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post Snowden. Just > today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how > little has really changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the > five eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct > of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up > and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is > there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must answer these > questions. > > The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN Gen > Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is quite > surprising becuase by all means, the first committee’s work is much less > participative (of other stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the > rationale here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see > when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now > the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but > remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the > expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this > issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks > of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. Progressive > civil society must take note rather than blindly signing on this rather > dangerous statement. > > The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security treaty > because there is no consensus on basic concepts and principles in the > area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area of climate change, and so > many other areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the area > of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a > part of a process towards development of global principles and agreements > and not a as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can > understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil society? > > Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet power status > quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you where to do either.... > Supporting this statement in my view will simply be to support the global > Internet status quo.... > > Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of all > Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is very > problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global stage, the dominant > political and economic forces get a free reign, and the little policy that > needs to be made is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the > Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's > news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to regulate > global IP TV transmissions). > > Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of the > economically and politically powerful... > > parminder > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Dear colleagues > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to come > up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the open > letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process itself, > which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to > develop positions on some of the most important substantive issues before > the conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 page > lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the next 24 hours > at: > > http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes > > The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on > which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the ITU's > restrictions on document access and because many Member States submitted > their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has > taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. > > It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we are > opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone has a > red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them from > signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose > an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other members of > the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit. > > Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting > these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil society > in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations endorsing. > > If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo to > Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) > tomorrow, 21 Oct. > > Best wishes > 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 From anne at webfoundation.org Thu Oct 23 15:22:45 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:22:45 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <20141023131729.26791c06@quill> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <20141023131729.26791c06@quill> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, I have forwarded your request to the list members and I am waiting for their replies. Best anne On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Many thanks, Anne, for your detailed response and explanation. > > I would like to hereby request permission review the archive. I'm > willing to promise to not disclose or discuss with any third parties > any information of the kind that you have referred to below as being > sensitive and the reason for not having a fully open archive, unless > and until said information also becomes available to me through some > other channel (such as e.g. WCITleaks.) [Nota bene my willingness to > agree in this particular situation to such a non-disclosure commitment > should not be read as an agreement in principle to some BestBits type > processes being less than fully open. It's just because I don't intend > to start a general public discussion of that issue of openness at the > current point in time.] > > In case an introduction is needed: I'm a German citizen, living in > Switzerland since a long time, and I'm an advocate for human rights and > Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). I've participated in many Internet > governance related discourses since a long time, for example as a > participant in the DRUMS working group at IETF which led to RFCs 2821 > and 2822, as a participant of the first two BestBits meetings (but not > the most recent one), as the initiator of the process that led to the > formation of the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG), and more > recently as a co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:51:11 +0200 > Anne Jellema wrote: > > > The pre-IGF BB meeting in Istanbul (report on the BB website) agreed > > on the creation of three fluid working groups. Carolina's note on the > > outcomes of this meeting, sent to the Best Bits list on 9 September, > > outlined these groups and who to contact if you wanted to join. > > Snippet below: > > > > > > > - *ITU working group:* A group of volunteers (see the list in > > > the BB report) has been formed. If you'd like to join, please > > > contact Anne Jellema and myself. > > > > > > > > About 30 people requested to join the ITU working group, were duly > > added and introduced themselves to the group; no one who asked was > > turned down. > > > > The group decided not to open its email list archive. Many of the > > group members are participating in government delegations, which is a > > valuable source of information and intelligence that CS needs for > > effective advocacy (especially in the ITU context where access to > > documents is highly restricted), but requires that you accept a duty > > to treat that information with great care. Those on delegations felt > > that there was some of this information that they could responsibly > > share with a group of 30 people whose identities, affiliations and > > reasons for participating in the group they knew, but not with an > > open mailing list of 370 people. > > > > Second, as mentioned above and also stressed in my note to the list > > the other day, this was a group of volunteers who prepared a > > statement and opened it to the wider BB list for endorsement (or > > not). The statement has not been issued in the name of "civil > > society" or "Best Bits" but only in the name of the organisations who > > chose to sign it. > > > > I hope that answers your questions but feel free to follow up. > > > > Best, > > Anne > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:38:08 +0200 > > > Anne Jellema wrote on the BestBits list: > > > > > > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to > > > > try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. > > > > > > May I ask some questions about this?: > > > > > > Was this an open process which any interested civil society person > > > would have been accepted to join upon request? > > > > > > Are there publicly accessible mailing list archives somewhere? > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > -- 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 avri at acm.org Thu Oct 23 15:34:20 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:34:20 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 15:57:18 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:57:18 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> Message-ID: <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. But maybe I’m missing something. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at apc.org Thu Oct 23 18:04:06 2014 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:04:06 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ITU PP meeting with SG tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54497B56.9030900@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi Lea, Joana, Thanks very much for offering to carry points to the meeting. On your second point: setting up an online mechanism for submitting information documents to the Conference. At WCIT the way that contributions on the public views platform were submitted as an information document was through as an annex to an information note from the SG. http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005!!MSW-E.pdf Since we already have a public views platform (http://www.itu.int/en/plenipotentiary/2014/Pages/public-views.aspx) it seems like a reasonable ask for the SG to transmit contributions as info docs to member states. There may be other ways to do this, but this request certainly seems relevant for a meeting with the SG. Unfortunately in the case of WCIT this was only done *after* the conference, so it would be good to be clear that we would like contributions submitted by the SG as they come in. Best of luck! Deborah On 10/23/14 10:58 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > Greetings from Busan. > > As some of you may know, a first of three meetings between civil > society and the outgoing ITU Secretary General Toure is scheduled > for tomorrow morning here in Busan. > > Some of us here will try to attend this meeting. As we are on > national delegations, we are limited in what we can say, especially > since the meeting is being webcast. However, we plan to follow up > on the asks addressed in the letter on ITU PP openness and > transparency which many of you here endorsed. In particular, we > plan to follow up on the asks of facilitating registration of > on-site observers, holding regular meetings with CS, and setting up > an online mechanism for submitting information documents to the > Conference. > > If there are any additional questions related to ITU openness and > transparency you would like us to raise - let us know - we will do > our best to raise them at this meeting. Due to delegation rules we > most likely won't be in a position to raise any issues related to > substantive discussions taking place at the PP. > > Apologies for the short notice. This meeting was confirmed at the > last minute - the ITU sent the official invites to national > delegations who then extended them to their civil society reps (or > in some cases - didn't). The good news is that two additional > meetings with civil society are planned for weeks 2 and 3, so we > will hopefully be able to be more coordinated going into those > meetings. > > To watch the webcast of the meeting, here is the link: > http://bit.ly/1yibChR > > Warm wishes, Lea & Joana > > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_ | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > > 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUSXtWAAoJEPeieloNaneN9P8QAJWK6GufYtXWdykhJ9AwNrRz 8t+hbo02fMkJ3Dx/h6K9MUB4yw1P89oh9A6KquCKoxhPyFx5IEa6x8acfcrZDX3t 30riM2nHWCfe9zFVR8hLfBErzLuTWXz+vNcFGX+8UPqb3gE7UM7R3fHaOON36kUP 4MKKI6dNdN6vlN49dV/IXgCEMQ6PBRajPUvzX0WLb4yt0967K+dMB9dYTuIOKlt8 kfocqBUJiU45hz9ALuUQD5/hRvlBGyuha60zkc/jVHP1CEAsiK64dzO1/ZBsLPGJ UaWx28E/hIlB9ehN6WDr11oRCzSIz14UCm3zrebeJL60VErSrBAIjpEYJ+00XO/b p8Efm+VKj1rE+1/JQ9I3FOppVHhNru2+KC2TSuAz3EPZJmHfTf5DVY6mD5ob3MNx nkUexZ/BrtkFxJ4w+oTxVOHHNkI1jmdiVY4adTYGY0QlJ6+z6kFDR/oQ32xAbQmp JvVzt8kyAMx5jfeg5wP2SsLsZHPPCKd4tPp5Lo0DW0/QwucnfthAqIYgqrEZ0C50 esfc+ZbX+lFXn8JotcSq39V7cpK3Hv1R2miyZ6FgQ3SKXsGkg34NjhK3PL/9nJQd 7ZEBkAZEre3XidMwayLng3T3qof7vCv74Z0Rsmz1Gs3mhHP+br1g6H5i5IJ6aHxm FApHrxYutKTdUX1rsGkm =xBY6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pwilson at apnic.net Thu Oct 23 19:06:42 2014 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:06:42 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] ITU PP meeting with SG tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0AF3D335-87D2-4BF0-AE67-9DED2E8B9D54@apnic.net> Lea, thanks. According to the webcast page the meeting has not started yet, and it is already 5 minutes past the hour. Is the start time running late, or is the webcast broken? thanks, Paul On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:58 am, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > Greetings from Busan. > > As some of you may know, a first of three meetings between civil society and the outgoing ITU Secretary General Toure is scheduled for tomorrow morning here in Busan. > > Some of us here will try to attend this meeting. As we are on national delegations, we are limited in what we can say, especially since the meeting is being webcast. However, we plan to follow up on the asks addressed in the letter on ITU PP openness and transparency which many of you here endorsed. In particular, we plan to follow up on the asks of facilitating registration of on-site observers, holding regular meetings with CS, and setting up an online mechanism for submitting information documents to the Conference. > > If there are any additional questions related to ITU openness and transparency you would like us to raise - let us know - we will do our best to raise them at this meeting. Due to delegation rules we most likely won't be in a position to raise any issues related to substantive discussions taking place at the PP. > > Apologies for the short notice. This meeting was confirmed at the last minute - the ITU sent the official invites to national delegations who then extended them to their civil society reps (or in some cases - didn't). The good news is that two additional meetings with civil society are planned for weeks 2 and 3, so we will hopefully be able to be more coordinated going into those meetings. > > To watch the webcast of the meeting, here is the link: http://bit.ly/1yibChR > > Warm wishes, > Lea & Joana > > > Lea Kaspar > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > 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 From pwilson at apnic.net Thu Oct 23 19:12:34 2014 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:12:34 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] ITU PP meeting with SG tomorrow In-Reply-To: <0AF3D335-87D2-4BF0-AE67-9DED2E8B9D54@apnic.net> References: <0AF3D335-87D2-4BF0-AE67-9DED2E8B9D54@apnic.net> Message-ID: <3285860D-5F6F-4187-97BD-FC3A6A70CA46@apnic.net> ok, webcast has started. On 24 Oct 2014, at 9:06 am, Paul Wilson wrote: > Lea, thanks. > > According to the webcast page the meeting has not started yet, and it is already 5 minutes past the hour. > > Is the start time running late, or is the webcast broken? > > thanks, > > Paul > > > On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:58 am, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Greetings from Busan. >> >> As some of you may know, a first of three meetings between civil society and the outgoing ITU Secretary General Toure is scheduled for tomorrow morning here in Busan. >> >> Some of us here will try to attend this meeting. As we are on national delegations, we are limited in what we can say, especially since the meeting is being webcast. However, we plan to follow up on the asks addressed in the letter on ITU PP openness and transparency which many of you here endorsed. In particular, we plan to follow up on the asks of facilitating registration of on-site observers, holding regular meetings with CS, and setting up an online mechanism for submitting information documents to the Conference. >> >> If there are any additional questions related to ITU openness and transparency you would like us to raise - let us know - we will do our best to raise them at this meeting. Due to delegation rules we most likely won't be in a position to raise any issues related to substantive discussions taking place at the PP. >> >> Apologies for the short notice. This meeting was confirmed at the last minute - the ITU sent the official invites to national delegations who then extended them to their civil society reps (or in some cases - didn't). The good news is that two additional meetings with civil society are planned for weeks 2 and 3, so we will hopefully be able to be more coordinated going into those meetings. >> >> To watch the webcast of the meeting, here is the link: http://bit.ly/1yibChR >> >> Warm wishes, >> Lea & Joana >> >> >> Lea Kaspar >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar >> 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 > From anne at webfoundation.org Tue Oct 7 15:40:07 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 21:40:07 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET Message-ID: Dear friends, After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a group of around 25 members of civil society have been coordinating various activities: • Pre-conference knowledge sharing; • Coordination of specific advocacy efforts; • Organising on the ground civil society activities in Busan. As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group has developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP Conference processes. Please find the letter here: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, and seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process of consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that the text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather than the standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After this, a final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as possible, will be available for 24 hours for endorsements. During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage members to focus on red lines that would prevent them from endorsing the letter rather than detailed line by line edits. This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate broader stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This does not preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at Member States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the Conference outcomes. This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary General/Secretariat later this week, and then to various ITU delegations as an FYI. Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the drafting. In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. Very 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 lea at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 23 23:59:13 2014 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:59:13 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [ITU PP] [reporting back] Today's meeting with SG Message-ID: Dear all, This is to give a quick update of today's meeting between civil society and SG Toure. - Meeting was very short (30min tops) as voting was scheduled for right after, and a bit odd as most of the present were actually from ISOC or technical community (which is ok), but also Mr Sepulveda, from US gov. Besides them, Lea, YJ Park and myself attended the meeting. - Points raised by Touré: - addressed our letter on transparency saying he was happy to see that the tone has changed from previous ones and that the letter had clear proposals on what to do. - highlighted his push to member states for allowing CSO to participate in member states delegations (as if it was enough) - mentioned his blog about engaging civil society: http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/engaging-civil-society-in-the-ict-sector/ - ISOC: - welcomed the opportunity for having such briefings, the webcast and access to docs - Joana and Lea: - welcomed access to docs and webcasting hoping such measures to become official - welcomed the opportunity for such meeting and stressed that many other colleagues will come for the meeting next week - asked for Mr Zhao to be in the next meetings for the sake of continuity of this kind of dialogue - asked for the possibility of having our documents also posted as information docs. - asked to have communications about civil soc meetings to be done directly with CSO, not only through head of delegations. - Toure: - affirmed Zhao and himself have a seaming-less communication and that he is sensitive to openness and transparency as well - welcomed receiving more docs from CSOs, as long as they are relevant to the ITU mandate (he highlighted that human rights do not fall under this category, etc). On ITU role told us again the metaphor of cars and road, as ITU dealing with roads = internet infrastructure. - asked us to not react bad if there were bad proposals submitted by ITU member states, that is not the ITU, that is the process. Due to time constraints, we weren't able to address the issue of participation of CSO through member states vs observers (lets note this and readdress in next meeting). There will be another two meetings in the next two weeks. After the meeting, ITU staff has reassured communication will be done directly with CS as well, and have pointed us to session "public views" of the website ( http://www.itu.int/en/plenipotentiary/2014/Pages/public-views.aspx), where actually our statement is already at and its a different "status" than information docs. They also promised to check if we could book a meeting room without going through a member state, and mentioned that they will try to bring Zhao to subsequent meetings. Best, Lea & Joana On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > ok, webcast has started. > > > > On 24 Oct 2014, at 9:06 am, Paul Wilson wrote: > > > Lea, thanks. > > > > According to the webcast page the meeting has not started yet, and it is > already 5 minutes past the hour. > > > > Is the start time running late, or is the webcast broken? > > > > thanks, > > > > Paul > > > > > > On 24 Oct 2014, at 12:58 am, Lea Kaspar wrote: > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Greetings from Busan. > >> > >> As some of you may know, a first of three meetings between civil > society and the outgoing ITU Secretary General Toure is scheduled for > tomorrow morning here in Busan. > >> > >> Some of us here will try to attend this meeting. As we are on national > delegations, we are limited in what we can say, especially since the > meeting is being webcast. However, we plan to follow up on the asks > addressed in the letter on ITU PP openness and transparency which many of > you here endorsed. In particular, we plan to follow up on the asks of > facilitating registration of on-site observers, holding regular meetings > with CS, and setting up an online mechanism for submitting information > documents to the Conference. > >> > >> If there are any additional questions related to ITU openness and > transparency you would like us to raise - let us know - we will do our best > to raise them at this meeting. Due to delegation rules we most likely won't > be in a position to raise any issues related to substantive discussions > taking place at the PP. > >> > >> Apologies for the short notice. This meeting was confirmed at the last > minute - the ITU sent the official invites to national delegations who then > extended them to their civil society reps (or in some cases - didn't). The > good news is that two additional meetings with civil society are planned > for weeks 2 and 3, so we will hopefully be able to be more coordinated > going into those meetings. > >> > >> To watch the webcast of the meeting, here is the link: > http://bit.ly/1yibChR > >> > >> Warm wishes, > >> Lea & Joana > >> > >> > >> Lea Kaspar > >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > >> gp-digital.org > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 05:49:02 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 02:49:02 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Plutocrats Against Democracy In-Reply-To: <112AD828-226C-4731-86D7-A139CD7D060E@warpspeed.com> References: <112AD828-226C-4731-86D7-A139CD7D060E@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <015e01cfef6f$be40f490$3ac2ddb0$@gmail.com> Perhaps some insights here that have relevance to our current discussion on democracy vs. multistakeholderism (decision making by self-selected elites) as models for Internet Governance. M -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:56 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Plutocrats Against Democracy Plutocrats Against Democracy By Paul Krugman Oct 23 2014 It's always good when leaders tell the truth, especially if that wasn't their intention. So we should be grateful to Leung Chun-ying, the Beijing-backed leader of Hong Kong, for blurting out the real reason pro-democracy demonstrators can't get what they want: With open voting, "You would be talking to half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than $1,800 a month. Then you would end up with that kind of politics and policies" - policies, presumably, that would make the rich less rich and provide more aid to those with lower incomes. So Mr. Leung is worried about the 50 percent of Hong Kong's population that, he believes, would vote for bad policies because they don't make enough money. This may sound like the 47 percent of Americans who Mitt Romney said would vote against him because they don't pay income taxes and, therefore, don't take responsibility for themselves, or the 60 percent that Representative Paul Ryan argued pose a danger because they are "takers," getting more from the government than they pay in. Indeed, these are all basically the same thing. For the political right has always been uncomfortable with democracy. No matter how well conservatives do in elections, no matter how thoroughly free-market ideology dominates discourse, there is always an undercurrent of fear that the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largess to the poor, and destroy the economy. In fact, the very success of the conservative agenda only intensifies this fear. Many on the right - and I'm not just talking about people listening to Rush Limbaugh; I'm talking about members of the political elite - live, at least part of the time, in an alternative universe in which America has spent the past few decades marching rapidly down the road to serfdom. Never mind the new Gilded Age that tax cuts and financial deregulation have created; they're reading books with titles like "A Nation of Takers: America's Entitlement Epidemic," asserting that the big problem we have is runaway redistribution. This is a fantasy. Still, is there anything to fears that economic populism will lead to economic disaster? Not really. Lower-income voters are much more supportive than the wealthy toward policies that benefit people like them, and they generally support higher taxes at the top. But if you worry that low-income voters will run wild, that they'll greedily grab everything and tax job creators into oblivion, history says that you're wrong. All advanced nations have had substantial welfare states since the 1940s - welfare states that, inevitably, have stronger support among their poorer citizens. But you don't, in fact, see countries descending into tax-and-spend death spirals - and no, that's not what ails Europe. Still, while the "kind of politics and policies" that responds to the bottom half of the income distribution won't destroy the economy, it does tend to crimp the incomes and wealth of the 1 percent, at least a bit; the top 0.1 percent is paying quite a lot more in taxes right now than it would have if Mr. Romney had won. So what's a plutocrat to do? One answer is propaganda: tell voters, often and loudly, that taxing the rich and helping the poor will cause economic disaster, while cutting taxes on "job creators" will create prosperity for all. There's a reason conservative faith in the magic of tax cuts persists no matter how many times such prophecies fail (as is happening right now in Kansas): There's a lavishly funded industry of think tanks and media organizations dedicated to promoting and preserving that faith. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: From gabrielle at article19.org Fri Oct 24 07:27:20 2014 From: gabrielle at article19.org (Gabrielle Guillemin) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:27:20 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org>,<038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/ Best, Gabrielle Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.” The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people. A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post. Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum a “ceremonial event”. It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states. On October 28, I will present a report to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input. To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy. I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over. As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say. First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement. Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily. The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network, has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India. Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli, a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care. Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved. Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened. There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies at their events altogether. No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf. It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either. The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings. When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states. Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses. Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR on Twitter. ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57 To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. But maybe I’m missing something. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. avri From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:12:08 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:12:08 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Michael Gurstein, The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define > anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your > reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of > Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia > > > > *Participatory democracy* is a process emphasizing the broad participation > of > constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. > Etymological roots of democracy > (Greek *demos * and *kratos > *) > imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are > participatory. … > > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of > a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks > to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites > (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to > participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members > of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > > But maybe I’m missing something. > > M > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > > > On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > > If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. > > > > I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) > as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative > democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the > bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate > into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of > democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct > democracy. > > I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory > democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite > different. > > 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 uva.liliana.bounegru at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:30:44 2014 From: uva.liliana.bounegru at gmail.com (uva.liliana.bounegru at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 09:30:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Show Me Your Dashboard - Digital Methods Winter School 2015 - Univ. of Amsterdam Message-ID: SHOW ME YOUR DASHBOARD New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice Digital Methods Winter School, Data Sprint and Mini-Conference 12-16 January 2015 | Digital Methods Winter School Digital Methods Initiative | http://www.digitalmethods.net/ Media Studies | University of Amsterdam https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/WinterSchool2015 The Digital Methods Initiative (DMI), Amsterdam, is pleased to announce its 7th annual Winter School, on New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice. The format is that of a data sprint, with hands-on work on media monitoring with data analytics, and a Mini-conference, where PhD candidates, motivated scholars and advanced graduate students present short papers on digital methods and new media related topics, and receive feedback from the Amsterdam group of DMI researchers and international participants. Participants need not give a paper at the Mini-conference to attend the Winter School. The focus of this year's Winter School is on how online media monitoring is currently done by non-governmental (NGOs) such as treealerts.org, and it seeks to identify practices that could fill in the notion of critical data analytics. For the occasion we have invited academics to present on the state of the art of online media monitoring by focusing on three areas where there is both innovation as well as repurposing of techniques normally associated with marketing, business intelligence and the work of digital agencies: issue discovery and language placement (who's carrying the conversation), engagement and public fund-raising (when do images and other engagement formats ‘work’?) and crisis communication (who is making the calls when there is a breakdown?). At the Winter School social media analysts and communications specialists from NGOs will present on the state of the art of media monitoring, their current analytical needs and what the Internet can continue to add with respect to new data sources as well as monitoring techniques. We will also ask each of the organizations to show us their dashboards. The first day kicks off with Nathaniel Tkacz from the University of Warwick who will talk about Dashboards and Data Signals, and the desire to control the data deluge. After the the first day of talks as well as dashboard show and tell, the data sprint commences, whereupon the attendees, including analysts, designers and programmers, undertake empirical projects that address the state of the art in NGO online media data analysis. We work on projects that seek to meet the current analytical needs. The week closes with presentations of the outcomes as well as a festive celebration. During the week there is also an evening of talks and a debate with Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, at the nearby Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science. The theme of the 2015 Winter School furthers the analytical collaboration between the Digital Methods Initiative and NGO media analysts, including Soenke Lorenzen of Greenpeace International. Previously workshop facilitators and collaborators have included representatives from Human Rights Watch, Association for Progressive Communications, Women on Waves, Carbon Trade Watch, Corporate Observatory Europe and Fair Phone. In preparation for the sprint we also have developed how-to worksheets on New Media Monitoring and Tooling that take as their case studies NGO issue mappings with digital methods. Upon conclusion we aim to compile the Sprint projects from the Winter School, and combine them with the how-to sheets to produce an open access publication on NGO media monitoring. All participants are invited to contribute. Digital Methods Winter School Data Sprint A data sprint is a workshop format for intensive, empirical project work, where analysts, programers, designers and subject matter experts collaborate to output research. This year's data sprint is devoted to new media monitoring with data analytics, and particularly its critical practice. Broadly speaking, media monitoring is understood as the process of reading, watching or listening to the editorial content of media sources on a continuing basis, and then identifying, analyzing and saving materials that contain specific themes, topics, keywords, names, forms or formats. Monitoring the editorial content of news sources including newspapers, magazines, trade journals, TV shows, radio programs and specific websites is by far the most common form of media monitoring, but most organizations increasingly monitor social media online, and its impact on the diffusion of news in all media or in online conversation (including the comment space) more generally. Most companies, government agencies, not-for-profit organizations utilize media monitoring as a tool to study the "meaning of mentions" of their organization, its campaigns and slogans, and gain some sense of the composition of their audiences, and what animates them (or keeps them quiet). During the first day of the data sprint academics studying online media monitoring will present the state of the art of the field, focusing on three areas: issue discovery and issue language placement (who is the carrying the conversation, and which voices are continually elided?), engagement and fundraising communication (how are audiences and funders reacting to so-called 'faces of need' and other formats and calls for engagement?) and crisis communication (when there is a breakdown, who makes the calls?). Representatives from leading NGOs will present to the attendees how they practice online media monitoring, the look of their dashboards and the analytical needs that drive them. What are these experts able to accomplish with the techniques available to them, and which questions remain unanswered? What are the critical media monitoring practices and questions that are specific to NGOs? How to conceptualize and operationalize issue discovery, engagement for fundraising and crisis monitoring? We will ask the NGO communications experts to address these questions. We also will ask them what they think digital methods and issue mapping may add to the outputs of media monitoring. The conversations with the experts will serve as starting points for winter school attendees - including analysts, designers and programmers - to develop into empirical projects that aim to answer research questions, and develop further techniques for media monitoring online. Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School The annual Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School, normally a one-day affair, provides the opportunity for digital methods and allied researchers to present short yet complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) and serve as respondents, providing feedback. Often the work presented follows from previous Digital Methods Summer Schools. The mini-conference accepts papers in the general digital methods and allied areas: the hyperlink and other natively digital objects, the website as archived object, web historiographies, search engine critique, Google as globalizing machine, cross-spherical analysis and other approaches to comparative media studies, device cultures, national web studies, Wikipedia as cultural reference, the technicity of (networked) content, post-demographics, platform studies, crawling and scraping, graphing and clouding, and similar. Key dates The deadline for application is 8 December 2014. To apply please send along a letter of motivation as well as your CV to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net, with DMI Winter School in the subject header. Notifications will be sent on 9 December. If you are participating in the Mini-conference the deadline for submission of paper titles, abstracts and bios is also 8 December, with DMI Mini-conference & Winter School in the subject header. Please send your materials to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net . To attend the Winter School, you need not participate in the Mini- conference. Deadline for submission of complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) is 6 January 2015. The program and schedule are available on 7 January. Fees & Logistics The fee for the Digital Methods Winter School 2015 is EUR 295. Bank transfer information will be sent along with the notification on 9 December 2014. The Winter School is self-catered. The venue is in the center of Amsterdam with abundant coffee houses and lunch places. Participants are expected to find their own housing (airbnb and other short-stay sites are helpful). During the week there is an evening at the Royal Academy with Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia. The Winter School closes on Friday with a festive event, after the final presentations. Here is a guide to the Amsterdam new media scene. For further questions, please contact the organizers, Liliana Bounegru, Natalia Sanchez and Saskia Kok, at winterschool at digitalmethods.net. About DMI The Digital Methods Winter School is part of the Digital Methods Initiative, Amsterdam, dedicated to reworking method for Internet-related research. The Digital Methods Initiative holds the annual Digital Methods Summer Schools (eight to date), which are intensive and full time 2-week undertakings in the Summertime. The 2015 Summer School will take place 29 June - 10 July 2015. The coordinators of the Digital Methods Initiative are Sabine Niederer and Esther Weltevrede (PhD candidates in New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam), and the director is Richard Rogers, Professor of New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam. Liliana Bounegru is the managing director. Digital methods are online at http://www.digitalmethods.net/. The DMI about page includes a substantive introduction, and also a list of Digital Methods people, with bios. DMI holds occasional Autumn and Spring workshops, such as recent ones on mapping climate change and vulnerability indexes as well as on studying right-wing extremism and populism online. There is also a Digital Methods book (MIT Press, 2013), papers and articles by DMI researchers as well as Digital Methods tools. See you in the winter time in Amsterdam! Image credit: Online resonance of the international climate change issue agenda, EMAPS data sprint, Amsterdam, April 2014. 
SHOW ME YOUR DASHBOARD New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice Digital Methods Winter School, Data Sprint and Mini-Conference 12-16 January 2015 | Digital Methods Winter School Digital Methods Initiative | http://www.digitalmethods.net/ Media Studies | University of Amsterdam https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/WinterSchool2015 The Digital Methods Initiative (DMI), Amsterdam, is pleased to announce its 7th annual Winter School, on New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice. The format is that of a data sprint, with hands-on work on media monitoring with data analytics, and a Mini-conference, where PhD candidates, motivated scholars and advanced graduate students present short papers on digital methods and new media related topics, and receive feedback from the Amsterdam group of DMI researchers and international participants. Participants need not give a paper at the Mini-conference to attend the Winter School. The focus of this year's Winter School is on how online media monitoring is currently done by non-governmental (NGOs) such as treealerts.org, and it seeks to identify practices that could fill in the notion of critical data analytics. For the occasion we have invited academics to present on the state of the art of online media monitoring by focusing on three areas where there is both innovation as well as repurposing of techniques normally associated with marketing, business intelligence and the work of digital agencies: issue discovery and language placement (who's carrying the conversation), engagement and public fund-raising (when do images and other engagement formats ‘work’?) and crisis communication (who is making the calls when there is a breakdown?). At the Winter School social media analysts and communications specialists from NGOs will present on the state of the art of media monitoring, their current analytical needs and what the Internet can continue to add with respect to new data sources as well as monitoring techniques. We will also ask each of the organizations to show us their dashboards. The first day kicks off with Nathaniel Tkacz from the University of Warwick who will talk about Dashboards and Data Signals, and the desire to control the data deluge. After the the first day of talks as well as dashboard show and tell, the data sprint commences, whereupon the attendees, including analysts, designers and programmers, undertake empirical projects that address the state of the art in NGO online media data analysis. We work on projects that seek to meet the current analytical needs. The week closes with presentations of the outcomes as well as a festive celebration. During the week there is also an evening of talks and a debate with Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, at the nearby Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science. The theme of the 2015 Winter School furthers the analytical collaboration between the Digital Methods Initiative and NGO media analysts, including Soenke Lorenzen of Greenpeace International. Previously workshop facilitators and collaborators have included representatives from Human Rights Watch, Association for Progressive Communications, Women on Waves, Carbon Trade Watch, Corporate Observatory Europe and Fair Phone. In preparation for the sprint we also have developed how-to worksheets on New Media Monitoring and Tooling that take as their case studies NGO issue mappings with digital methods. Upon conclusion we aim to compile the Sprint projects from the Winter School, and combine them with the how-to sheets to produce an open access publication on NGO media monitoring. All participants are invited to contribute. Digital Methods Winter School Data Sprint A data sprint is a workshop format for intensive, empirical project work, where analysts, programers, designers and subject matter experts collaborate to output research. This year's data sprint is devoted to new media monitoring with data analytics, and particularly its critical practice. Broadly speaking, media monitoring is understood as the process of reading, watching or listening to the editorial content of media sources on a continuing basis, and then identifying, analyzing and saving materials that contain specific themes, topics, keywords, names, forms or formats. Monitoring the editorial content of news sources including newspapers, magazines, trade journals, TV shows, radio programs and specific websites is by far the most common form of media monitoring, but most organizations increasingly monitor social media online, and its impact on the diffusion of news in all media or in online conversation (including the comment space) more generally. Most companies, government agencies, not-for-profit organizations utilize media monitoring as a tool to study the "meaning of mentions" of their organization, its campaigns and slogans, and gain some sense of the composition of their audiences, and what animates them (or keeps them quiet). During the first day of the data sprint academics studying online media monitoring will present the state of the art of the field, focusing on three areas: issue discovery and issue language placement (who is the carrying the conversation, and which voices are continually elided?), engagement and fundraising communication (how are audiences and funders reacting to so-called 'faces of need' and other formats and calls for engagement?) and crisis communication (when there is a breakdown, who makes the calls?). Representatives from leading NGOs will present to the attendees how they practice online media monitoring, the look of their dashboards and the analytical needs that drive them. What are these experts able to accomplish with the techniques available to them, and which questions remain unanswered? What are the critical media monitoring practices and questions that are specific to NGOs? How to conceptualize and operationalize issue discovery, engagement for fundraising and crisis monitoring? We will ask the NGO communications experts to address these questions. We also will ask them what they think digital methods and issue mapping may add to the outputs of media monitoring. The conversations with the experts will serve as starting points for winter school attendees - including analysts, designers and programmers - to develop into empirical projects that aim to answer research questions, and develop further techniques for media monitoring online. Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School The annual Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School, normally a one-day affair, provides the opportunity for digital methods and allied researchers to present short yet complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) and serve as respondents, providing feedback. Often the work presented follows from previous Digital Methods Summer Schools. The mini-conference accepts papers in the general digital methods and allied areas: the hyperlink and other natively digital objects, the website as archived object, web historiographies, search engine critique, Google as globalizing machine, cross-spherical analysis and other approaches to comparative media studies, device cultures, national web studies, Wikipedia as cultural reference, the technicity of (networked) content, post-demographics, platform studies, crawling and scraping, graphing and clouding, and similar. Key dates The deadline for application is 8 December 2014. To apply please send along a letter of motivation as well as your CV to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net, with DMI Winter School in the subject header. Notifications will be sent on 9 December. If you are participating in the Mini-conference the deadline for submission of paper titles, abstracts and bios is also 8 December, with DMI Mini-conference & Winter School in the subject header. Please send your materials to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net . To attend the Winter School, you need not participate in the Mini- conference. Deadline for submission of complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) is 6 January 2015. The program and schedule are available on 7 January. Fees & Logistics The fee for the Digital Methods Winter School 2015 is EUR 295. Bank transfer information will be sent along with the notification on 9 December 2014. The Winter School is self-catered. The venue is in the center of Amsterdam with abundant coffee houses and lunch places. Participants are expected to find their own housing (airbnb and other short-stay sites are helpful). During the week there is an evening at the Royal Academy with Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia. The Winter School closes on Friday with a festive event, after the final presentations. Here is a guide to the Amsterdam new media scene. For further questions, please contact the organizers, Liliana Bounegru, Natalia Sanchez and Saskia Kok, at winterschool at digitalmethods.net. About DMI The Digital Methods Winter School is part of the Digital Methods Initiative, Amsterdam, dedicated to reworking method for Internet-related research. The Digital Methods Initiative holds the annual Digital Methods Summer Schools (eight to date), which are intensive and full time 2-week undertakings in the Summertime. The 2015 Summer School will take place 29 June - 10 July 2015. The coordinators of the Digital Methods Initiative are Sabine Niederer and Esther Weltevrede (PhD candidates in New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam), and the director is Richard Rogers, Professor of New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam. Liliana Bounegru is the managing director. Digital methods are online at http://www.digitalmethods.net/. The DMI about page includes a substantive introduction, and also a list of Digital Methods people, with bios. DMI holds occasional Autumn and Spring workshops, such as recent ones on mapping climate change and vulnerability indexes as well as on studying right-wing extremism and populism online. There is also a Digital Methods book (MIT Press, 2013), papers and articles by DMI researchers as well as Digital Methods tools. See you in the winter time in Amsterdam! Image credit: Online resonance of the international climate change issue agenda, EMAPS data sprint, Amsterdam, April 2014. 
SHOW ME YOUR DASHBOARD New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice Digital Methods Winter School, Data Sprint and Mini-Conference 12-16 January 2015 | Digital Methods Winter School Digital Methods Initiative | http://www.digitalmethods.net/ Media Studies | University of Amsterdam https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/WinterSchool2015 The Digital Methods Initiative (DMI), Amsterdam, is pleased to announce its 7th annual Winter School, on New Media Monitoring and Data Analytics as Critical Practice. The format is that of a data sprint, with hands-on work on media monitoring with data analytics, and a Mini-conference, where PhD candidates, motivated scholars and advanced graduate students present short papers on digital methods and new media related topics, and receive feedback from the Amsterdam group of DMI researchers and international participants. Participants need not give a paper at the Mini-conference to attend the Winter School. The focus of this year's Winter School is on how online media monitoring is currently done by non-governmental (NGOs) such as treealerts.org, and it seeks to identify practices that could fill in the notion of critical data analytics. For the occasion we have invited academics to present on the state of the art of online media monitoring by focusing on three areas where there is both innovation as well as repurposing of techniques normally associated with marketing, business intelligence and the work of digital agencies: issue discovery and language placement (who's carrying the conversation), engagement and public fund-raising (when do images and other engagement formats ‘work’?) and crisis communication (who is making the calls when there is a breakdown?). At the Winter School social media analysts and communications specialists from NGOs will present on the state of the art of media monitoring, their current analytical needs and what the Internet can continue to add with respect to new data sources as well as monitoring techniques. We will also ask each of the organizations to show us their dashboards. The first day kicks off with Nathaniel Tkacz from the University of Warwick who will talk about Dashboards and Data Signals, and the desire to control the data deluge. After the the first day of talks as well as dashboard show and tell, the data sprint commences, whereupon the attendees, including analysts, designers and programmers, undertake empirical projects that address the state of the art in NGO online media data analysis. We work on projects that seek to meet the current analytical needs. The week closes with presentations of the outcomes as well as a festive celebration. During the week there is also an evening of talks and a debate with Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, at the nearby Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science. The theme of the 2015 Winter School furthers the analytical collaboration between the Digital Methods Initiative and NGO media analysts, including Soenke Lorenzen of Greenpeace International. Previously workshop facilitators and collaborators have included representatives from Human Rights Watch, Association for Progressive Communications, Women on Waves, Carbon Trade Watch, Corporate Observatory Europe and Fair Phone. In preparation for the sprint we also have developed how-to worksheets on New Media Monitoring and Tooling that take as their case studies NGO issue mappings with digital methods. Upon conclusion we aim to compile the Sprint projects from the Winter School, and combine them with the how-to sheets to produce an open access publication on NGO media monitoring. All participants are invited to contribute. Digital Methods Winter School Data Sprint A data sprint is a workshop format for intensive, empirical project work, where analysts, programers, designers and subject matter experts collaborate to output research. This year's data sprint is devoted to new media monitoring with data analytics, and particularly its critical practice. Broadly speaking, media monitoring is understood as the process of reading, watching or listening to the editorial content of media sources on a continuing basis, and then identifying, analyzing and saving materials that contain specific themes, topics, keywords, names, forms or formats. Monitoring the editorial content of news sources including newspapers, magazines, trade journals, TV shows, radio programs and specific websites is by far the most common form of media monitoring, but most organizations increasingly monitor social media online, and its impact on the diffusion of news in all media or in online conversation (including the comment space) more generally. Most companies, government agencies, not-for-profit organizations utilize media monitoring as a tool to study the "meaning of mentions" of their organization, its campaigns and slogans, and gain some sense of the composition of their audiences, and what animates them (or keeps them quiet). During the first day of the data sprint academics studying online media monitoring will present the state of the art of the field, focusing on three areas: issue discovery and issue language placement (who is the carrying the conversation, and which voices are continually elided?), engagement and fundraising communication (how are audiences and funders reacting to so-called 'faces of need' and other formats and calls for engagement?) and crisis communication (when there is a breakdown, who makes the calls?). Representatives from leading NGOs will present to the attendees how they practice online media monitoring, the look of their dashboards and the analytical needs that drive them. What are these experts able to accomplish with the techniques available to them, and which questions remain unanswered? What are the critical media monitoring practices and questions that are specific to NGOs? How to conceptualize and operationalize issue discovery, engagement for fundraising and crisis monitoring? We will ask the NGO communications experts to address these questions. We also will ask them what they think digital methods and issue mapping may add to the outputs of media monitoring. The conversations with the experts will serve as starting points for winter school attendees - including analysts, designers and programmers - to develop into empirical projects that aim to answer research questions, and develop further techniques for media monitoring online. Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School The annual Digital Methods Mini-Conference at the Winter School, normally a one-day affair, provides the opportunity for digital methods and allied researchers to present short yet complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) and serve as respondents, providing feedback. Often the work presented follows from previous Digital Methods Summer Schools. The mini-conference accepts papers in the general digital methods and allied areas: the hyperlink and other natively digital objects, the website as archived object, web historiographies, search engine critique, Google as globalizing machine, cross-spherical analysis and other approaches to comparative media studies, device cultures, national web studies, Wikipedia as cultural reference, the technicity of (networked) content, post-demographics, platform studies, crawling and scraping, graphing and clouding, and similar. Key dates The deadline for application is 8 December 2014. To apply please send along a letter of motivation as well as your CV to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net, with DMI Winter School in the subject header. Notifications will be sent on 9 December. If you are participating in the Mini-conference the deadline for submission of paper titles, abstracts and bios is also 8 December, with DMI Mini-conference & Winter School in the subject header. Please send your materials to winterschool [at] digitalmethods.net . To attend the Winter School, you need not participate in the Mini- conference. Deadline for submission of complete papers (5,000-7,500 words) is 6 January 2015. The program and schedule are available on 7 January. Fees & Logistics The fee for the Digital Methods Winter School 2015 is EUR 295. Bank transfer information will be sent along with the notification on 9 December 2014. The Winter School is self-catered. The venue is in the center of Amsterdam with abundant coffee houses and lunch places. Participants are expected to find their own housing (airbnb and other short-stay sites are helpful). During the week there is an evening at the Royal Academy with Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia. The Winter School closes on Friday with a festive event, after the final presentations. Here is a guide to the Amsterdam new media scene. For further questions, please contact the organizers, Liliana Bounegru, Natalia Sanchez and Saskia Kok, at winterschool at digitalmethods.net. About DMI The Digital Methods Winter School is part of the Digital Methods Initiative, Amsterdam, dedicated to reworking method for Internet-related research. The Digital Methods Initiative holds the annual Digital Methods Summer Schools (eight to date), which are intensive and full time 2-week undertakings in the Summertime. The 2015 Summer School will take place 29 June - 10 July 2015. The coordinators of the Digital Methods Initiative are Sabine Niederer and Esther Weltevrede (PhD candidates in New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam), and the director is Richard Rogers, Professor of New Media & Digital Culture, University of Amsterdam. Liliana Bounegru is the managing director. Digital methods are online at http://www.digitalmethods.net/. The DMI about page includes a substantive introduction, and also a list of Digital Methods people, with bios. DMI holds occasional Autumn and Spring workshops, such as recent ones on mapping climate change and vulnerability indexes as well as on studying right-wing extremism and populism online. There is also a Digital Methods book (MIT Press, 2013), papers and articles by DMI researchers as well as Digital Methods tools. See you in the winter time in Amsterdam! Image credit: Online resonance of the international climate change issue agenda, EMAPS data sprint, Amsterdam, April 2014. From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:51:04 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:51:04 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism? M From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear Michael Gurstein, The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. But maybe I’m missing something. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:53:51 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:53:51 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: It would be a right thing to agree upon this position and highlight this position for the good of the Internet and in the interest of good governance of the Internet and beyond :) Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 6:51 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… > > > > Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) > is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon > position among the proponents of MSism? > > > > M > > > > *From:* Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Dear Michael Gurstein, > > > > The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed > as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in > its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Sivasubramanian M > > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define > anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your > reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of > Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia > > > > *Participatory democracy* is a process emphasizing the broad participation > of > constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. > Etymological roots of democracy > (Greek *demos * and *kratos > *) > imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are > participatory. … > > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of > a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks > to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites > (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to > participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members > of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > > But maybe I’m missing something. > > M > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > > > On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > > If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. > > > > I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) > as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative > democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the > bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate > into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of > democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct > democracy. > > I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory > democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite > different. > > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:59:09 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:59:09 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM To: 'Sivasubramanian M' Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism? M From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear Michael Gurstein, The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. But maybe I’m missing something. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:59:09 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:59:09 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <54494080.6050004@eff.org> <02ec01cfeef1$6ea28f30$4be7ad90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <022801cfef92$b0430680$10c91380$@gmail.com> As I said McTim I have little to comment on "classical" MSism. However, I would be very interested to hear how you would see the accountability mechanisms in "classical" MSism applied in more global models of governance whether democratic (as I was looking for below) or the MSist model? M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:44 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Jeremy Malcolm; rhill at hill-a.ch; Baudouin Schombe; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:44 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Jeremy, > > I think the more useful way forward than engaging in these types of slanging matches is to begin working towards effective accountable democratic governance structures and modalities for the age of the Internet. By my scoring, you are the only one doing the slanging. If you had experience in the "classical" MSism, you would understand that there are effective accountability mechanisms in the "classical" regimes. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 24 10:16:27 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:46:27 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] RE: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <1494270a940.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <020701cfef91$8e171ed0$aa455c70$@gmail.com> <1494270a940.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <544A5F3B.8040606@itforchange.net> On Friday 24 October 2014 07:25 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Does that mean 'people who step up to do real work'? That would be > stakeholders. > > There are other steakholders who don't have any sweat or other equity > invested in a process but still demand a stake.. > All In fact, the above is a very good, if somewhat inadvertent, description of the neolib approach to governance that the IG style multistakeholder- ism embodies. Those who 'really contribute' - read, the rich and the able - get to vote, and the free riders - read, the poor and the unwashed - do not count... One obviously cannot directly say in this age that rich will vote and control governance and poor do not deserve a role or a vote... Instead of speaking of their poverty, it is their inabilities that get spoken of (which is considered the cause of their poverty). And if those who do not have the 'ability' are given a role in governance, they will only use to extract what is deserving not theirs. This is social darwinism, a well known doctrine of neolibs. parminder > > On 24 October 2014 9:51:53 am "michael gurstein" > wrote: > >> Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… >> >> Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed >> elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally >> agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism? >> >> M >> >> *From:*Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM >> *To:* michael gurstein >> *Cc:* Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for >> ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >> >> Dear Michael Gurstein, >> >> The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is >> viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this >> phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects >> being defined. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 >> >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein >> > wrote: >> >> You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define >> anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your >> reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of >> Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia >> >> *Participatory democracy* is a process emphasizing the broad >> participation >> of >> constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. >> Etymological roots of democracy >> (Greek /demos >> / and /kratos >> /) imply >> that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are >> participatory. … >> >> Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all >> members of a population to make meaningful contributions to >> decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have >> access to such opportunities. >> >> It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed >> elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they >> choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities >> for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to >> decision-making”. >> >> But maybe I’m missing something. >> >> M >> >> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> ] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for >> ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >> >> On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> If you take a look at my >> blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my >> argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in >> competition with democratic governance. >> >> >> >> I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism >> (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the >> representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect >> as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who >> sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I >> define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic >> representative democracy and full direct democracy. >> >> I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of >> participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are >> really quite different. >> >> 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 amedinagomez at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 17:10:52 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=C3=B3mez?=) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 16:10:52 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all The Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet, ACUI sign the letter. Congratulation for this initiative Best regard 2014-10-07 14:40 GMT-05:00 Anne Jellema : > Dear friends, > > > > After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a fluid > working group to coordinate civil society engagement at the upcoming ITU > Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a group of around 25 > members of civil society have been coordinating various activities: > > • Pre-conference knowledge sharing; > > • Coordination of specific advocacy efforts; > > • Organising on the ground civil society activities in Busan. > > > > As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group has developed > a letter with several specific asks regarding PP Conference processes. Please > find the letter here: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . > > > Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, and seeing as > the letter has already gone through a lengthy process of consolidation > among the group members, we are requesting that the text be open for > comments for a period of 24 hours (rather than the standard 48), i.e. until > 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After this, a final text, which we'll try to pull > together as fast as possible, will be available for 24 hours for > endorsements. > > > During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage members to focus > on red lines that would prevent them from endorsing the letter rather than > detailed line by line edits. > > > This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and encourage > them to do what is in their power to facilitate broader stakeholder > engagement in the Conference itself. This does not preclude any additional > advocacy efforts directed at Member States of the ITU, who will, in the > end, decide the Conference outcomes. > > > > This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary General/Secretariat later > this week, and then to various ITU delegations as an FYI. > > > Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the drafting. > > > > In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the efforts > of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. > > > > Very 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 > -- 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 genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 10:21:15 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:21:15 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to discuss in person at some future meeting. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. > > > > M > > > > *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM > *To:* 'Sivasubramanian M' > *Cc:* 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org > *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… > > > > Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) > is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon > position among the proponents of MSism? > > > > M > > > > *From:* Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Dear Michael Gurstein, > > > > The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed > as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in > its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Sivasubramanian M > > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define > anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your > reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of > Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia > > > > *Participatory democracy* is a process emphasizing the broad participation > of > constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. > Etymological roots of democracy > (Greek *demos * and *kratos > *) > imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are > participatory. … > > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of > a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks > to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites > (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to > participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members > of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > > But maybe I’m missing something. > > M > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > > > On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > > If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. > > > > I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) > as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative > democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the > bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate > into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of > democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct > democracy. > > I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory > democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite > different. > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 10:32:36 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 07:32:36 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> No, I don’t think so, Gene. Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite central importance going forward. I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by their silence indicate consent. M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to discuss in person at some future meeting. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM To: 'Sivasubramanian M' Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism? M From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear Michael Gurstein, The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. But maybe I’m missing something. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. 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 _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 11:08:47 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:08:47 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <14942a48a80.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <14942a48a80.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <028701cfef9c$69dab030$3d901090$@gmail.com> Of course these models of governance are aspirations—goals, directions towards which we strive, but which equally have the effect of strongly conditioning our current decisions and directions—which is why this discussion is not theoretical but extremely practical. Is the direction towards which we strive in the area of global (Internet) governance one that maximizes democracy (rule by and for the people) or one that maximizes multi-stakeholderism (rule by and for the elite who have “stakes”)? Simple question. Siva went on to suggest that MSism is the next stage beyond democracy an even stronger position – that is that rule by and for the people has now somehow become obsolete in the face of the overwhelming ascendance of certain private corporations, certain elite groups, certain countries and their allies. Civil Society of course has traditionally (classically) supported democracy and the broadest base of participation in the structures and operations of governance. But in the absence of a denial of these propositions rejecting Democracy presented by Siva and others it would appear that that too has become obsolete. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:52 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Gene Kimmelman'; michael gurstein Cc: 'Sivasubramanian M'; forum at justnetcoalition.org; 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP' Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Why isn't a multi stakeholder process any less broad or inclusive than say a multi lateral government only model, or a Parliamentary model in which a few elected representatives (whom you may not even have voted for), or a bureaucrat employed by the government elected by a country, determines policy that affects you? True participatory democracy, going by the letter of that wiki definition, appears to be found in the cantons of Switzerland I guess, or on a smaller scale, in a local club where every member has a voice and a stake on where to hold their annual event, for example. On 24 October 2014 10:33:45 am "michael gurstein" wrote: No, I don’t think so, Gene. Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite central importance going forward. I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by their silence indicate consent. M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > IRP Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to discuss in person at some future meeting. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM To: 'Sivasubramanian M' Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism? M From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear Michael Gurstein, The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. But maybe I’m missing something. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. 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 _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 11:10:44 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:10:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so. Sorry it may not serve your purposes of how and when you'd like to engage people. But I'm sorry, you shouldn't draw any particular conclusions from it other than what you care to believe. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > No, I don’t think so, Gene. > > > > Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of > most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite > central importance going forward. > > > > I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too > delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by > their silence indicate consent. > > > > M > > > > *From:* Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP > *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on > period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates > that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits > of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to > discuss in person at some future meeting. > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. > > > > M > > > > *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM > *To:* 'Sivasubramanian M' > *Cc:* 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org > *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… > > > > Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) > is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon > position among the proponents of MSism? > > > > M > > > > *From:* Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Dear Michael Gurstein, > > > > The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed > as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in > its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Sivasubramanian M > > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define > anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your > reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of > Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia > > > > *Participatory democracy* is a process emphasizing the broad participation > of > constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. > Etymological roots of democracy > (Greek *demos * and *kratos > *) > imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are > participatory. … > > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of > a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks > to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites > (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to > participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members > of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > > But maybe I’m missing something. > > M > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > > > On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > > If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. > > > > I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) > as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative > democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the > bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate > into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of > democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct > democracy. > > I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory > democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite > different. > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 24 11:12:35 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:42:35 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> <5447E72E.3040606@itforchange.net> <5447EB40.3060500@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <544A6C63.2050406@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 11:07 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Dear Parminder, > > I am a bit amazed that you first make a point on how we should > substantively discuss issues, whereas you post this polemic directly > after. Dear Niels Rather than just dismissing it as a polemic I will encourage you to attentively read Chehadi's presentation of the global IG model that the dominant forces are pushing, and put forward some real arguments as to how the positions that many civil society groups are taking, including through the referred bestbits statement, do not simply further that particular IG model. I am happy to do a focussed discussion on this subject, > > It's perhaps slightly ironic that some of the people that you accuse > of pushing the neo-liberal model were exactly the ones at ICANN51 in > LA pushing for a human rights mechanism within ICANN. What mechanism is that? And does it include cultural rights of people whereby generic words of any language, like 'book' and 'beauty' cannot be privatised through closed generics class of domain name allocations. Again, happy to further explore this issue. > > I am surprised that you see discussing issues of content and privacy > at the ITU a part of evolving democratic governance. The ITU is not > nearly transparent enough for this to be an appropriate venue to > discuss this. Ok, I think you perhaps came into this discussion late. This has been going on for years now. Let me tell you, I myself convinced the delegates of a very good number of developing countries that instead of taking all these issues to the ITU, it is in their interest to seek a rather open, transparent and participative new UN based body for these purposes, which takes from the best global models available in this area. And this model was OECD's Internet policy making body, plus an organic connection to the UN IGF... I am speaking of India's UN - Committee on Internet-related Policies (CIRP) proposal (which was developed from an earlier public proposal made by my organisation) . I did a lot of work in this area, to develop latent support among many developing country delegated who were otherwise intent to sticking to the ITU... (In fact I even met Toure about it!) But then, what reception did that open and participative model of UN CIRP get from this same civil society, which now wants openness and participative- ness. Let me not begin on that, but you perhaps know.... So, now after rejecting more open, transparent and participative models, to blame ITU for not being these all things, and argue that *therefore* it should not do Internet policy is , excuse me to say, more than a bit disingenuous. > Surveillance is not just an attack on infrastructure, it > is a serious interference with the human right to privacy. Yes, absolutely... And more than that, mass surveillance is a new means of pervasive social, economic, political and cultural control, in ways which have still not even been fully conceptualised yet. And precisely for these reasons, something needs to be done urgently about it. I dont see anything less that a treaty that can reign in - at least normatively - the conduct of states being adequate to the purpose. Of course this in addition to other solutions. And we need the solutions NOW... You are raising a concern, but that means nothing unless you are ready to propose a plausible solution going forward. What is your proposal? Let US gov and companies rule the Internet? If not, what can put brakes on their power? These are the real issue. Just to be always saying, No, I dont like this institution and also I dont like that one, takes us nowhere (but the status quo). I am happy for civil society to seek new forums and new institutions (of course, not those who would give google the same right as governments) but if these are not forthcoming, I will work with the possibilities we have, and the ITU comes nearest to possibility we have at hand. > The ITU has > not got sufficient competence when it comes to human rights. All UN bodies are bound by human rights. But then we also have specific sectoral bodies with sectoral competencies... Can WTO, WIPO, even UNESCO , UNDP, UNEP, be called human rights experts, in the way in which the HR Council is ..... > Discussing privacy violations and surveillance should start with the > UN Human Rights Council. Niels, HRC is a human rights remedial mechanisms... All our countries have it. Such HR mechanisms are immensely important, but they do not replace sectoral policy bodies... Cyber security, IP based communication paradigm, and so on, need sectoral competence and focus... HR Councils cannot run the world... But they are remedial (and HR formulating) mechanisms which come into play when they need to. Lets not mix things. Sectoral norms, principles and policy making is a different thing than HR, while , definitionally, all policies have to be informed by HR (as contitutional principles of a polity) > > Saying that the ITU is not the right platform to discuss this is not > at all the same thing as saying that this issue should be left to the > market or the US government (or five/nine-eyes for that matter). If it isnt, then please tell me who is going to reign in these biggest powers on the global Internet today... I am ready to work with your solution, as far as there is something plausible on the table. I am serious, please put forward your proposals. And I have been asking this from many CS players for years. Of course, if there are no positive proposals, one would be justified in concluding that one is *largely* content with the status quo.. Or at least considers the cost of suggesting real changes more than of staying with the status quo. That is what I mean by being content with the status quo. Again, if you are not for leaving things to the market and US gov, then who? Please be explicit, with as much detail as possible. > And I > would even say that it is an deliberate misrepresentation that does > not help the substantive discussion, Since you accuse me of deliberate mis- representation, let me speak freely as well . I think it is dis-honest to say no, *not this* whenever a real proposal comes on the table (CIRP, ITU...) but still insist that no I am not for status quo... Further, it is hypocritical to work with for instance policy making mechanisms of OECD, CoE, etc and then call any proposal that are similarly structured but involves all governments as belonging to the side of the dark forces out to control the Internet. > and the deep thinking that is > indeed needed, any further. Over the last 10 years we have been 'thinking' and discussing, the global Internet has moved from a relatively innocent and egalitarian artefact to something completely different, and people are really really worried about the directions it is moving in. At some point, we need to 'do something' as well'. Now is that time. parminder > > Best, > > Niels > > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 10/22/2014 07:19 PM, parminder wrote: >> And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what >> a neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just >> read the below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out >> rather well >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operations-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/ >> >> >> >> It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. >> There can simply be no doubt in it. >> >> And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at >> this crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even >> painfully slow) evolving democratic governance of our collective >> global affairs including the Internet, or shifting over to >> neoliberal governance by the elite.. And if they side with this >> structural shift to neolib governance today, it will be for keeps. >> We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. At >> the very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of >> us. >> >> parminder >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Further to Parminder’s comments below. >>> >>> I recently published a blogpost >>> >>> >>> > (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic >>> model of “governance by and for the people” is in direct >>> conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of >>> “governance by and for stakeholders”. >>> >>> I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in >>> such a way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a >>> value in simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation >>> that often masks fundamental positions and values. >>> >>> I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue >>> more broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a >>> democratic approach to governance including in areas as central >>> to our experience, well-being and future as the Internet and >>> those who would give this governance over to decision making by >>> those with specific “interests/stakes” in the outcome (and where >>> the broad public interest if represented at all would be only one >>> among many such competing “stakes”) is a fundamental one. >>> >>> It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of >>> “civil society” and others opting for a position that does not >>> support democracy and democratic governance however and in what >>> manner that might be achieved. >>> >>> M >>> >>> *From:*IRP >>> [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM >>> *To:* Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch *Cc:* >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >>> forum at justnetcoalition.org *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - >>> Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU >>> Plenipot joint recommendations >>> >>> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>> >>> Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware >>> that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons >>> for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we >>> fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has >>> expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the >>> Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable. >>> >>> In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your >>> criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an >>> entirely accurate reading of its content: >>> >>> - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free >>> markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should >>> retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates >>> where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal >>> service and promote robust competition." The drafters include >>> organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for >>> stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) >>> level. >>> >>> - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should >>> take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes >>> the "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the >>> global governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important >>> role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination >>> and collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and >>> multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we >>> think are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge >>> challenges ahead. >>> >>> That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" >>> was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as >>> proposed by Jeanette. >>> >>> I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views >>> can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort >>> to find the common ground between differing positions. >>> >>> >>> Dear Anne >>> >>> Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage >>> on this discussion. But my present email will only make one >>> point, about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which >>> your email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that >>> manner, but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political >>> criticism in these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean >>> personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must >>> recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction >>> and submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the >>> world they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the >>> realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who >>> really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on >>> all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a >>> political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil >>> society space, as in the conventional political space. However, >>> for instance in India, which has a rather high level of >>> professional in traditional political space, at least at the >>> national level, political personalities are able to be scathing >>> and unsparing in terms of their political positions and counter >>> positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil >>> or any such thing. >>> >>> I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this >>> because many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you >>> come from a core political civil society background, and so I an >>> really not talking about you.) I also say it because I and people >>> that I work with feel that the present position that is being >>> proposed on the BestBits platform a major political statement >>> that we find extremely problematic and something that sets a >>> solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging >>> Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the >>> world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and social >>> justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner >>> stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest >>> it, with all means at our disposal. >>> >>> I will separately respond to some substantive points in your >>> above email. >>> >>> best regards parminder >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anne >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill >> > wrote: >>> >>> I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his >>> comments. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> -----Original Message----- *From:* Forum >>> [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org >>> ]*On Behalf Of >>> *parminder *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 *To:* >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> ; >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ; >>> forum at justnetcoalition.org ; >>> IRP *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 >>> hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >>> >>> >>> I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in >>> detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It >>> says yes there are many very important global Internet policy >>> issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them up, but >>> tells us nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a >>> recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free >>> world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the >>> documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its >>> Global Redesign Initiative). >>> >>> I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important >>> Internet policy issues at the global level or some other >>> democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable >>> that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows >>> those who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly >>> the US based economic and political establishment, to carry on >>> consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an >>> expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and >>> therefore I strongly oppose it. >>> >>> To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); >>> >>> Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from >>> developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies >>> unregulated global market models for global Internet >>> inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand of >>> all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the >>> WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the >>> main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that >>> issue by declaring that such things be best left to free markets, >>> with no regulatory framework, or even a normative/ principles >>> framework. In any case, it is not clear how even working on the >>> interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from the WSIS >>> is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not >>> one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a >>> mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the >>> proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask for the >>> closing down of the ITU. >>> >>> Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards >>> a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world >>> post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's >>> colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on >>> the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is >>> concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of >>> the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply >>> given up and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? >>> Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? >>> Civil society must answer these questions. >>> >>> The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the >>> UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. >>> That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first >>> committee’s work is much less participative (of other >>> stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale >>> here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see >>> when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but >>> right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first >>> committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber >>> security treaty will require the expertise of ITU which is the >>> agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply >>> obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks of a >>> movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. >>> Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly >>> signing on this rather dangerous statement. >>> >>> The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber >>> security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts >>> and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on >>> the area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just >>> give up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet >>> governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part >>> of a process towards development of global principles and >>> agreements and not a as a pre condition of them. This is >>> universally known. One can understand why US wants to protect the >>> status quo, but why civil society? >>> >>> Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet >>> power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you >>> where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will >>> simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... >>> >>> Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of >>> all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage >>> is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global >>> stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free >>> reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at >>> plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific >>> Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's >>> news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to >>> regulate global IP TV transmissions). >>> >>> Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule >>> of the economically and politically powerful... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>> >>> Dear colleagues >>> >>> As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to >>> try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. >>> We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in >>> the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank >>> you!). Our second and harder task was to develop positions on >>> some of the most important substantive issues before the >>> conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 >>> page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the >>> next 24 hours at: >>> >>> *http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes* >>> >>> The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference >>> proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both >>> because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because >>> many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the >>> day. As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up >>> against the start of the Plenipot itself. >>> >>> It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, >>> so we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If >>> however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" >>> issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me >>> personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve >>> this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid >>> working group on whether to accept this edit. >>> >>> Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not >>> presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on >>> behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the >>> specific organisations endorsing. >>> >>> If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send >>> your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org >>> ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) >>> tomorrow, 21 Oct. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Forum mailing >>> list Forum at justnetcoalition.org >>> >>> http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > - -- >>> 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* >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your >> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUR+s/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpBSMH/0PR5KgEQ1rHeUZTUO7b3YWi > kvYktLQp3oIwMwepxgahmNLZww8vWE3P70z/gLyNc7ZG0JlO2o0W6hgyRlpZzkWk > 4t9u1ryOZ/CXWYLd53zQ13bPZuDeqAud3hheGIsozCdGkbXZpvMuznc1d+S2mTBC > fwnqggGTUfpRmcIti5gR+rUmwtqFnKALz1+GfPyqBxvt8IeqvZGTRzT5kg/qxj0e > wmuYgMBqicTfb42b2McAT5SCsm12JXhyM9EpHLZefcgClbh8VsVA/LqOwnbMLVgy > 1jLTLGeGxDwmWrerYKVlbNhaeTYZdM7DA7Rp3miKirMoe7kBbTDexEkM2Mw2KWM= > =b/3V > -----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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 11:30:22 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:30:22 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> It is interesting to see that those who are amongst the most vocal and public advocates for MSism are also those who refuse to actually indicate what they mean by MSism. M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 8:11 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so. Sorry it may not serve your purposes of how and when you'd like to engage people. But I'm sorry, you shouldn't draw any particular conclusions from it other than what you care to believe. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM, michael gurstein wrote: No, I don’t think so, Gene. Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite central importance going forward. I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by their silence indicate consent. M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to discuss in person at some future meeting. On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM To: 'Sivasubramanian M' Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon position among the proponents of MSism? M From: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear Michael Gurstein, The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein wrote: You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. But maybe I’m missing something. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. 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 _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 11:43:52 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:43:52 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Why not try continuing the discussion, but temporarily banning the use of the word "multistakeholderism" and all of its related terms? This would involve more words, more typing, more time reading, but would save time in the long run because each contributor to the discussion would be forced to describe exactly what he/she is talking about, and the discussion itself would be clarified. (Other possible candidates for the temporary ban are democracy and liberalism/ neo-liberalism) Deirdre On 24 October 2014 11:30, michael gurstein wrote: > It is interesting to see that those who are amongst the most vocal and > public advocates for MSism are also those who refuse to actually indicate > what they mean by MSism. > > > > M > > > > *From:* Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 8:11 AM > > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP > *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on > period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important > matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we > see the right time and place to do so. Sorry it may not serve your > purposes of how and when you'd like to engage people. But I'm sorry, you > shouldn't draw any particular conclusions from it other than what you care > to believe. > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > No, I don’t think so, Gene. > > > > Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of > most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite > central importance going forward. > > > > I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too > delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by > their silence indicate consent. > > > > M > > > > *From:* Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP > *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on > period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates > that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits > of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to > discuss in person at some future meeting. > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. > > > > M > > > > *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM > *To:* 'Sivasubramanian M' > *Cc:* 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org > *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… > > > > Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) > is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon > position among the proponents of MSism? > > > > M > > > > *From:* Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Dear Michael Gurstein, > > > > The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed > as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in > its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Sivasubramanian M > > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define > anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your > reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of > Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia > > > > *Participatory democracy* is a process emphasizing the broad participation > of > constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. > Etymological roots of democracy > (Greek *demos * and *kratos > *) > imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are > participatory. … > > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of > a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks > to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites > (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to > participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members > of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > > But maybe I’m missing something. > > M > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > > > On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > > If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. > > > > I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) > as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative > democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the > bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate > into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of > democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct > democracy. > > I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory > democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite > different. > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 12:29:37 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:59:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <028701cfef9c$69dab030$3d901090$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <14942a48a80.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <028701cfef9c$69dab030$3d901090$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Michael Gurstein, Throughout history, when any revolution, mild or bloody, replaced an injustice, often it was by another (at inception or on deterioration). Russian Revolution displaced Dr.Zhivago's and the French Revolution guillotined a Sydney Carton or two. Communism and Socialism proved to evolve to bring up its own classes of elites, Democracy captivated the imagination of the common man for the past 2000 years, but little does the common man realizes that he has no role in the rule, except for his vote to elect the ones who rule. One of the ills of Democracy is that of skewed justice owing to the influence exercised by Interest of Lobby groups, formal and informal, visible and invisible. What is charming about Multistakeholderism is that it recognizes multiple interests and that the interests are visible and seated around the table, with a certain attempt to balance the interests of one another. This way, Multi-stakeholderism addresses one of the unspoken ills of Democracy. And in tiers, the whole world participates ( for e.g a tier on top with Participants in a Working Group, another tier of subscribers to a mailing list and yet another tier of Public Comments in the Public Comment + News or wider Blog space. I am not actually rejecting Democracy, but of the opinion that the inevitable gaps in Democracy could be effectively filled by the MultiStakeholder model, which could be viewed as, - forgive me for the pun - Enhanced Democracy ? Sivasubramanian M ​.​ On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Of course these models of governance are aspirations—goals, directions > towards which we strive, but which equally have the effect of strongly > conditioning our current decisions and directions—which is why this > discussion is not theoretical but extremely practical. > > > > Is the direction towards which we strive in the area of global (Internet) > governance one that maximizes democracy (rule by and for the people) or one > that maximizes multi-stakeholderism (rule by and for the elite who have > “stakes”)? Simple question. > > > > Siva went on to suggest that MSism is the next stage beyond democracy an > even stronger position – that is that rule by and for the people has now > somehow become obsolete in the face of the overwhelming ascendance of > certain private corporations, certain elite groups, certain countries and > their allies. > > > > Civil Society of course has traditionally (classically) supported > democracy and the broadest base of participation in the structures and > operations of governance. But in the absence of a denial of these > propositions rejecting Democracy presented by Siva and others it would > appear that that too has become obsolete. > > > > M > > > > *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 7:52 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Gene Kimmelman'; michael gurstein > *Cc:* 'Sivasubramanian M'; forum at justnetcoalition.org; 'Avri Doria'; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'IRP' > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: > 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Why isn't a multi stakeholder process any less broad or inclusive than say > a multi lateral government only model, or a Parliamentary model in which a > few elected representatives (whom you may not even have voted for), or a > bureaucrat employed by the government elected by a country, determines > policy that affects you? > > True participatory democracy, going by the letter of that wiki definition, > appears to be found in the cantons of Switzerland I guess, or on a smaller > scale, in a local club where every member has a voice and a stake on where > to hold their annual event, for example. > > On 24 October 2014 10:33:45 am "michael gurstein" > wrote: > > No, I don’t think so, Gene. > > > > Siva has made a very clear and simple statement here in the context of > most of those in CS currently active in the IG space on an issue of quite > central importance going forward. > > > > I would have thought that advocates of the MSist model would be only too > delighted to make a public declaration of opposition on this matter, or by > their silence indicate consent. > > > > M > > > > *From:* Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 7:21 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Sivasubramanian M; forum at justnetcoalition.org; Avri Doria; IGC; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> IRP > *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on > period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > I'm sorry Michael, but I think silence -- at least on my part -- indicates > that many of us just don't have the time to engage right now on the merits > of this; I'm just too busy and think this may be something better to > discuss in person at some future meeting. > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. > > > > M > > > > *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:51 AM > *To:* 'Sivasubramanian M' > *Cc:* 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net'; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; forum at justnetcoalition.org > *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Thanks for this Sivasubramanian… > > > > Can I/we take this i.e. that MSism (governance by self-appointed elites) > is the “next evolutionary stage of democracy” is a generally agreed upon > position among the proponents of MSism? > > > > M > > > > *From:* Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2014 6:12 AM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Dear Michael Gurstein, > > > > The definitions are reconciled when the multistakeholder model is viewed > as the next phase of evolution of Democracy, and in this phase, it is in > its initial stages of evolution with some aspects being defined. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Sivasubramanian M > > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define > anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your > reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of > Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia > > > > *Participatory democracy* is a process emphasizing the broad participation > of > constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. > Etymological roots of democracy > (Greek *demos * and *kratos > *) > imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are > participatory. … > > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of > a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks > to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites > (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to > participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members > of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > > But maybe I’m missing something. > > M > > > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU > Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > > > On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > > If you take a look at my > > blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my > > argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in > > competition with democratic governance. > > > > I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) > as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative > democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the > bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate > into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of > democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct > democracy. > > I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory > democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite > different. > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Fri Oct 24 13:16:25 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:16:25 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Final IGF contribution for endorsement Message-ID: <544A8969.1070408@eff.org> Following on from the previous thread (15 and 10 October) in which I posted a draft contribution to the upcoming IGF open consultation meeting, which takes stock of the Istanbul meeting and looks forward to the future, the statement is now ready for endorsement. There was not any discussion on-list or any amendments on the pad (many people are preoccupied with the ITU), but I did receive some comments off-list. In any case, since it is consistent with our previous statements (which it references) and since the deadline for submission is Monday, now is the time to take the statement online. Please read and, if you agree, endorse here: http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/ Also, the final text is found below: *Introduction* There is broad support within civil society for the continuation of a reformed and strengthened IGF.[0] At the same time, it is undeniable that the almost decade-long evolution of the IGF has been very slow and cautious, in comparison to other fora and events such as NETmundial.[1] This may have spurred the development of a number of other meetings and initiatives which, on some level, compete with the IGF. Whilst this diversity of initiatives can be positive, there is also the risk that too many of them may sap energy and attention from the IGF itself, which has a particular impact on civil society whose resources to participate in multiple initiatives is the most constrained. This effect could be minimised if the IGF would be more responsive to suggestions that stakeholders have made, often repeatedly,[1] to address observed deficits in the IGF's structure and format. One of the difficulties is that there is really no "IGF" to effectively evaluate and implement these suggestions; there is a Secretariat, with limited resources and a narrow self-assessed mandate to effect structural changes to the IGF, and there is a MAG which, overall, considers itself a programme committee only and is similarly reluctant to depart from established structures and formats. The IGF would benefit from the appointment of a new, charismatic and visionary Executive Coordinator, with multi-stakeholder support, to personally evangelise for and drive the necessary changes. But in the interim, it would also be possible for the periodic open consultation meetings to be facilitated -- perhaps by an independent professional -- in a way that is more open to blue-sky thinking, rather than being limited to a narrow analysis of the annual meeting themes and the like. Even the present consultation, which is limited to "format", "schedule" and "themes", reveals a certain narrowness of thinking in this regard. It does not lend itself very well to suggestions about the structural evolution of the IGF that might allow it to more fully execute its mandate, such as significant changes to its management structure,[1] the execution of a coordinating function,[2] or the establishment of issue-specific multistakeholder working groups[2]. *Format* Perhaps the most significant departure from previous practice at the Istanbul meeting was the new Best Practice Forum mechanism. This was effectively a compromise between the call by many for outputs from the IGF, and the reluctance of others for the IGF to adopt processes that could produce such outputs by consensus. A result of this compromise is that since the outcome documents (once they are released) do not represent a consensus, they may not be regarded as particularly persuasive or useful by external governance bodies. More effective use could have been made of the academic community to contribute towards the development of the draft best practice recommendations, rather than expecting a self-selected multi-stakeholder group (and in practice, only a few individuals within the group) to develop these. The most distinctive contribution of a multi-stakeholder group is not its technical expertise in developing policy options, but rather the legitimacy that it provides by bringing multiple perspectives to bear on the task of deciding between those options. Another relatively new practice, first adopted for the Bali meeting and repeated at the Istanbul meeting, was the call to the community for suggestions of policy questions to be addressed at the meeting. All of these -- 49 in Bali and 31 in Istanbul -- were simply collected and passed on to session organisers. This was not effective in practice and should not be repeated. Instead, a more collaborative process of developing a smaller list of pressing policy problems (like the five selected for the Best Practice Forums) should be used. Despite various proposals made from time to time,[1] the IGF has yet to experiment with any large-scale, participatory and deliberative session format aimed towards the development of consensus resolutions on policy issues, somewhat like the NETmundial process, which was a combination of online and face-to-face work utilising both small and large multi-stakeholder groups. The IGF should draw on the services of a specialist in participatory event organisation to experiment with this type of session format.[3] *Schedule* The scheduling of the IGF should cover the full year, including timelines for working groups to develop concrete proposals to be taken further at the IGF. This would give it the capacity to sustain a work programme between meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern. Such a reform would add much value for online participants, essentially providing an online and intersessional equivalent of the annual IGF meeting. Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in the IGF, because they are not granted the same status as those who attend the face-to-face meetings.[1] The workshop proposal review process remains flawed. Workshops are partly scored based on whether panelists are confirmed to attend, but in many cases panelists' attendance is contingent on the workshop being approved, which creates a vicious circle, and also provides an incentive for workshop organisers to misstate whether panelists are confirmed. Workshop proponents are given no feedback on why their workshops were not approved, and overall the process is not conducted transparently. The face to face Best Practice Forums in Istanbul were not helped by being scheduled alongside workshops, with the result that most IGF participants did not take part in them. If the IGF is to develop outputs with the chance of gaining the broadest possible consensus and input from outside a small group of "usual suspects", as the Best Practice Forums aimed to do, then there should be some focussed time allocated for this, free of the distraction of other simultaneous meetings.[1] *Themes* In general, the IGF should address policy questions that are controversial and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other multi-stakeholder mechanism for global coordination. It should avoid themes that are too broadly framed like "openness" and "security" that are not grounded in any specific real-life context. The national IGFs should feed issues into the regional IGFs which should in turn feed issues into the Global IGF so that the the issues at the global level in part reflect the concerns and challenges raised by the national and regional IGFs -- a reporting in session by IGFs (as is currently the case) is inadequate.[1] We propose that the overall theme of the 2015 IGF meeting should be "Internet governance for sustainable development and promotion of human rights". We are conscious that some governments do not approve of an explicit mention of human rights in the IGF's overall theme. As the IGF is not a conventional multilateral body but a multi-stakeholder one, we do not believe that a few governments should be able to exercise a veto in this case. As the NETmundial Principles amply demonstrate, there is rough consensus around the centrality of human rights to Internet governance, and this ought to be reflected in the overall theme for the 2015 meeting. *Conclusion* The IGF is in a unique position to democratise participation in Internet governance, by acting as both a coordinating mechanism to connect stakeholders to external Internet governance processes, and also as a policy venue in its own right where emerging or orphan issues can be addressed and consensus-based solutions found and documented. But the IGF has been hampered in fulfilling its potential by its lack of structures and processes appropriate to the execution of these tasks. To change this will require both bold leadership to drive the required reforms to the IGF (most of which have been well documented by the UN CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements as well as in the NETmundial Statement.[4]), along with a stronger resource base to implement those reforms. The IGF's present lack of either of these presents it with a chicken-and-egg dilemma. However as a first step, we strongly encourage UNDESA to forthwith appoint a new high-level Executive Coordinator to the IGF who can prioritise the implementation of the necessary reforms. [0] http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/ [1] http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/ [2] http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/ [3] http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ [4] http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/ -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 14:19:42 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:19:42 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> Message-ID: <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> As I pointed out in an earlier message MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”. Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. M From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 11:13 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24/10/2014 11:03 am, michael gurstein wrote: As you and perhaps everyone well knows I have for several years both via these email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each time getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so.” And I realize how important you are and how valuable your time is but surely since this has been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you and other elements of CS for several years some type of definition would be appropriate and surely sometime over those last few years there would have been a “right time and place” to give that definition! That's why I set up a fluid working group under Best Bits to develop such a definition, but there was not much participation (or maybe the LiquidFeedback software was too complex for people to be comfortable using): http://bestbits.net/lf/ So far, FWIW, this is the definition that has most support (Avri wrote it): Multistakeholderism: study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and the implementations. with the following definitions of some included terms 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. Notions of equal footing must take into account all aspects of capacity to participate, and must strive to enable full participation through capacity building and development agendas. Stakeholder: A term borrowed from Project Management. ” Loosely defined, a stakeholder is a person or group of people who can affect or be affected by a given project. Stakeholders can be individuals working on a project, groups of people or organizations, or even segments of a population. A stakeholder may be actively involved in a project’s work, affected by the project’s outcome, or in a position to affect the project’s success. “ and the derivative: Multistakeholder process: A form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at apc.org Tue Oct 7 22:58:06 2014 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 22:58:06 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5434A83E.9070100@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Thanks Anne for this great summary and coordinating this. In addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary General, could we also address it to (or copy) the current deputy Secretary General who is the uncontested candidate to be the next SG? It could be strategic to start engaging him early on and relevant to include him in his current post in any case. Kind regards, Deborah On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Dear friends,____ > > __ __ > > After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a > fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at the > upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a group > of around 25 members of civil society have been coordinating > various activities:____ > > • Pre-conference knowledge sharing;____ > > • Coordination of specific advocacy efforts;____ > > • Organising on the ground civil society activities in Busan.____ > > __ __ > > As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group has > developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP > Conference processes. Please find the letter here: > https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . > > > Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, and > seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process of > consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that the > text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather than the > standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After this, a final > text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as possible, will be > available for 24 hours for endorsements. > > > During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage members > to focus on red lines that would prevent them from endorsing the > letter rather than detailed line by line edits. > > > This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and > encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate broader > stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This does not > preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at Member States > of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the Conference outcomes. > > __ __ > > This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary General/Secretariat > later this week, and then to various ITU delegations as an FYI. > > > Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the > drafting. > > __ __ > > In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the > efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. __ > > __ __ > > Very 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUNKg9AAoJEPeieloNaneNjQkP/0hggQKHvhPxKjYie4mh57gz DPtoZdYKYE7zkzxbKdn8rG35xZVeJoD9ma9w55O41x4Mlf54pjRO+Xs+ue5GCOqM aWqeJolQdpf7v1uV66LQdfF30PQvAwsOKb4QJHwgtj7ztsM5VoE5BR6H75TS/b0L Lkesb9u8HaBtbM900H38aXNIBiqVEAlQpiGhoToZ+aEx/MiHNF61xCqvsFBldTxS M0E0UP3W09Qn7GJKDAk+YTkqmo32NwFulUH+Sl6w8/HnL5RZQcnAETNFU47VAtPR qwhUML5a1MzMQUTIO5xzcCh19ltYVLNGSGuchepO4M67TwsXQUgczihIiqDueVSV b9Mf5x74EEYJErgaH+3LkPSzR3G/UN6zCAar6fhGf7c9LOq12P0VxrEeKwwaD+V7 JrcUUqBt1R1QjUd6F655wz4bxGkXU3LjGYK0CCGd2W1zEJP7PmDp1VuCLJr7xmG/ nBrgvQpSrlSPJLhUXAwlBsJBgGnOC2lLHj0+ZNoUA3df4RU5SnavoxS0siCFQ+km +zV+FoopFwRCNpsBVv8YW8aCCS3lFi+ZcD+DM5q0KrNQjS2+ctRdVYH9hNfYRL8C PnFbmilHavkzna/WkgzLIv7L9Ve0UDlyydHrR7ADzeU3V1eGh6xWNOk2c4qKoBjE qwRxPLU2IUeGhyYguRzf =e5Ql -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 15:35:31 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:05:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory > Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or > broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this > by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” ​ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Oct 24 15:48:18 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:48:18 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org>,<038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> Thanks for posting that Gabrielle. I think it puts clearly why relying on traditional fora of nation states (aka democracy in some peoples language) is problematic. There are enough examples below to cause significant concern for anyone who wants civil society participation. I think the article makes a telling point when it says " I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over." I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems. However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant. As Charles Nevile put it on another list, "It takes a certain kind of stubbornness not to recognise that there are extremely serious limitations to the capacity of a "multi-stakeholder approach" to be guaranteed to represent all the people". So in my mind, we are comparing Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Particularly when the real power of corporations to influence (and change) so called democratic governments is take into account. When we move beyond that we might be able to develop solutions. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Gabrielle Guillemin Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 10:27 PM To: michael gurstein ; 'Avri Doria' ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Hi all, I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/ Best, Gabrielle Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.” The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people. A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post. Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum a “ceremonial event”. It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states. On October 28, I will present a report to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input. To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy. I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over. As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say. First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement. Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily. The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network, has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India. Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli, a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care. Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved. Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened. There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies at their events altogether. No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf. It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either. The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings. When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states. Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses. Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR on Twitter. ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57 To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. But maybe I’m missing something. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. 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 From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Oct 24 15:49:41 2014 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:49:41 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? David On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. > > The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” > > > ​ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 Oct 24 16:05:50 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:35:50 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear David Allen, It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for ​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen < David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make > choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, > of their representatives, in the first place ... > > But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a > place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm > ... > > In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through > the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table > with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since > there is no ballot box, they can speak? > > Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be > representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? > > David > > > On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: > > It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts > participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a > working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected > representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to > class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early > in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion > that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. > > The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its > intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES > extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory >> Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or >> broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this >> by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” > > > > ​ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 Oct 24 16:15:05 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 22:15:05 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think that Avri's definition remains Avri's idealistic view of a digital Wonderland that she is by the same token contributing to keep at bay from any form of democratic thinking with such non sense (no offense Avri!): - Indeed that definition doesn't match any reality. And if it did that would not just mean that a few of us are either blind or stupid - that could still be the case, I must admit!- but that would mean that such a so-called Participatory MSistic democracy has been best used by a few big players (one country with its public structure and private champions, and a few other old gentle followers such as Sweden, the UK, Japan and other Lex Americana wannabe, claiming that not one single state should had final cut over the Internet and its major untold public policy decisions made by geeks and jerks). What we can observe when looking at the "participatory MS democracy" result is proof that we are not facing a participatory democracy process. Simply a pure plutocratic exercise. How come that, since 1998 when the US took away from Postel the overall management of the root, the Internet is under the authority of a contract edited by the US gov, still valid to this day. - Is this flawed definition related to a past, present or future MS? Again we do not see how this MS understanding can deliver any single step forward for a better and more balanced Internet governance. MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music. Who pays the musicians... - What is so brilliant with MS is that whatever the number of participants, IG keeps being a US toy for its economic benefit, first and foremost. So yes, one can say that it allows a lot of people (a thousand?) to have the impression of being part of the process, it still means nothing in terms of representativity, or real change. An effective participation of the same old tribe, passing the mic to one another, doesn't equate to an efficient debate (having consequences). It is not difficult to understand how biased is the IG debate when we look at which US entities are putting money into that fora. ISOC, ICANN and the usual suspects from the private sector. IGF, ITU... have none. So whatever interest one can have in all of that brownian world, the reality of the current MS is still a misery, and a prejudice to the fundamental ideal of democracy. Le 24 oct. 2014 à 20:19, michael gurstein a écrit : > As I pointed out in an earlier message MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”. > > Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > M > > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 11:13 AM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > On 24/10/2014 11:03 am, michael gurstein wrote: > > As you and perhaps everyone well knows I have for several years both via these email lists and my blog been asking for a definition of “MSism”, each time getting a reply somewhat parallel to Gene’s trivial response “Yes, I am very busy making public declarations as appropriate on important matters. And I'm sure I and many others will address this issue when we see the right time and place to do so.” > > And I realize how important you are and how valuable your time is but surely since this has been a dominant meme and priority initiative for you and other elements of CS for several years some type of definition would be appropriate and surely sometime over those last few years there would have been a “right time and place” to give that definition! > > That's why I set up a fluid working group under Best Bits to develop such a definition, but there was not much participation (or maybe the LiquidFeedback software was too complex for people to be comfortable using): > > http://bestbits.net/lf/ > > So far, FWIW, this is the definition that has most support (Avri wrote it): > > Multistakeholderism: study and practice of forms of participatory democracy that allow for all those who have a stake and who have the inclination, to participate on equal footing in the deliberation of issues and the recommendation of solutions. While final decisions and implementation may be assigned to a single stakeholder group, these decision makers are always accountable to all of the stakeholders for their decisions and the implementations. > with the following definitions of some included terms > > 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. Notions of equal footing must take into account all aspects of capacity to participate, and must strive to enable full participation through capacity building and development agendas. > > Stakeholder: > A term borrowed from Project Management. > > ” Loosely defined, a stakeholder is a person or group of people who can affect or be affected by a given project. Stakeholders can be individuals working on a project, groups of people or organizations, or even segments of a population. A stakeholder may be actively involved in a project’s work, affected by the project’s outcome, or in a position to affect the project’s success. “ > > and the derivative: > > Multistakeholder process: > A form of participatory democracy where any person, alone or as part of a group, can contribute fully. > > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Oct 24 16:33:31 2014 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:33:31 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2F674E13-B5F2-44D5-BC68-B955E1E91B0D@post.harvard.edu> On Oct 24, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear David Allen, > > It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for ​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. So pleased that - in your almighty wisdom ...- you will decide what is 'sufficient.' Oh, wait a minute, 70 million are listening - that is news. Or, more to the point, a fantasy. Really? You want to assert such a thing in serious dialog? Right now, as pivotal decisions are being made in Busan, we can have a test of the possibilities. How many do you imagine are actually tuned in to the live stream? actual count? > If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. Which, actually, we have been doing for the last few hundred years, in the modern history of democracy. We just didn't think to give it a fancy name. Nor, did we corrupt this - invaluable, for real democracy - involvement of the public, by then ceding power only to the powerful. As MSist of the day today have done. > > There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. That is most certainly true. And you think the sorts of goings-on, on these lists, in IGF, etc, have solved those problems, any problems? Ian Peter has just noted - using only _my_ words now - how much failure there has been, all around. And, goodness knows, we do not need a perverted MS process that actually only empowers the powerful further. > Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 Careful of the CJ Leung approach, so far carefully avoided in conversation here. Any real, decent governance starts with the disenfranchised - not the powerful. Myself, I must note. I will carry on conversation that is productive. But that which is circular and so fails to advance understanding only obfuscates. Of course, mileage may vary. Best regards, David > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen wrote: > Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... > > But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... > > In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? > > Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? > > David > > > On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. >> >> The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” >> >> >> ​ >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 24 17:04:38 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:04:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <544ABEE6.20402@acm.org> On 24-Oct-14 09:59, michael gurstein wrote: > Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. That can NEVER be assumed. It just means that some arguments, with some people, at some points in time, just aren't the top priority. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 24 17:17:34 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:17:34 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] *** SPAM ***Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <544AC1EE.2020906@acm.org> On 24-Oct-14 16:15, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > I think that Avri's definition remains Avri's idealistic view of a digital Wonderland that she is by the same token contributing to keep at bay from any form of democratic thinking with such non sense (no offense Avri!): No offense taken. We see the world and the functioning of institutions differently. I can live with that. I do not believe my descriptions are idealistic, I believe I am describing what I see and the environment I work within. What I think is not only normative, it is descriptive. As with representative democracy, in the places in which some model exists, participatory democracy is not a perfected thing. I agree is is something we strive to make better, and in the trenches of these institutions we keep striving to improve it. I do find it ironic that during a period when we are striving to find a way to allow the US government to finally give up its solitary position guarding the stability of the Internet, we are still being accused of supporting their continued position. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 17:43:53 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:43:53 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM To: David Allen Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear David Allen, It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for ​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen wrote: Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? David On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” ​ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 17:49:11 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:49:11 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544ABEE6.20402@acm.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <544ABEE6.20402@acm.org> Message-ID: <04f001cfefd4$58c75f40$0a561dc0$@gmail.com> Silence, even by those who insist on being silent in their silence, is a very telling and significant statement in a context such as this one. What it says is that we can’t or don’t need to give a definition—we can proceed without one because we have power, wealth and influence on our side—no one can make us, or stop us and ultimately it doesn’t matter what you or anyone think or do—MSism is, as the Queen of Hearts said, whatever we choose it to mean and if you don’t like it well… M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:05 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24-Oct-14 09:59, michael gurstein wrote: Perhaps we can assume here that silence is consent. That can NEVER be assumed. It just means that some arguments, with some people, at some points in time, just aren't the top priority. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Wed Oct 8 01:44:18 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 07:44:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET In-Reply-To: <5434A83E.9070100@apc.org> References: <5434A83E.9070100@apc.org> Message-ID: Great suggestion Deborah - the ITU fluid working group supports this idea. Best Anne On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Thanks Anne for this great summary and coordinating this. > > In addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary General, could > we also address it to (or copy) the current deputy Secretary General > who is the uncontested candidate to be the next SG? It could be > strategic to start engaging him early on and relevant to include him > in his current post in any case. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > > Dear friends,____ > > > > __ __ > > > > After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a > > fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at the > > upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a group > > of around 25 members of civil society have been coordinating > > various activities:____ > > > > • Pre-conference knowledge sharing;____ > > > > • Coordination of specific advocacy efforts;____ > > > > • Organising on the ground civil society activities in Busan.____ > > > > __ __ > > > > As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group has > > developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP > > Conference processes. Please find the letter here: > > https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . > > > > > > Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, and > > seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process of > > consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that the > > text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather than the > > standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After this, a final > > text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as possible, will be > > available for 24 hours for endorsements. > > > > > > During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage members > > to focus on red lines that would prevent them from endorsing the > > letter rather than detailed line by line edits. > > > > > > This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and > > encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate broader > > stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This does not > > preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at Member States > > of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the Conference outcomes. > > > > __ __ > > > > This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary General/Secretariat > > later this week, and then to various ITU delegations as an FYI. > > > > > > Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the > > drafting. > > > > __ __ > > > > In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the > > efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. __ > > > > __ __ > > > > Very 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 > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUNKg9AAoJEPeieloNaneNjQkP/0hggQKHvhPxKjYie4mh57gz > DPtoZdYKYE7zkzxbKdn8rG35xZVeJoD9ma9w55O41x4Mlf54pjRO+Xs+ue5GCOqM > aWqeJolQdpf7v1uV66LQdfF30PQvAwsOKb4QJHwgtj7ztsM5VoE5BR6H75TS/b0L > Lkesb9u8HaBtbM900H38aXNIBiqVEAlQpiGhoToZ+aEx/MiHNF61xCqvsFBldTxS > M0E0UP3W09Qn7GJKDAk+YTkqmo32NwFulUH+Sl6w8/HnL5RZQcnAETNFU47VAtPR > qwhUML5a1MzMQUTIO5xzcCh19ltYVLNGSGuchepO4M67TwsXQUgczihIiqDueVSV > b9Mf5x74EEYJErgaH+3LkPSzR3G/UN6zCAar6fhGf7c9LOq12P0VxrEeKwwaD+V7 > JrcUUqBt1R1QjUd6F655wz4bxGkXU3LjGYK0CCGd2W1zEJP7PmDp1VuCLJr7xmG/ > nBrgvQpSrlSPJLhUXAwlBsJBgGnOC2lLHj0+ZNoUA3df4RU5SnavoxS0siCFQ+km > +zV+FoopFwRCNpsBVv8YW8aCCS3lFi+ZcD+DM5q0KrNQjS2+ctRdVYH9hNfYRL8C > PnFbmilHavkzna/WkgzLIv7L9Ve0UDlyydHrR7ADzeU3V1eGh6xWNOk2c4qKoBjE > qwRxPLU2IUeGhyYguRzf > =e5Ql > -----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 > -- 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sat Oct 25 00:12:34 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:12:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] *** SPAM ***Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544AC1EE.2020906@acm.org> References: <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <544AC1EE.2020906@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks Avri. The irony might lay somewhere else: it appears that your vision of a future (to-be-achieved) MSism tends to ignore a necessary critic of what MS was and still is. It also appears to start with the premise that any current form of classical representativity or democracy should be seen as non valid form to contribute to the future of Internet Governance, in order to switch from the current asymmetry to a so-called Participative MS Democratic form of Internet Governance. The irony is that everything that is related to classical representation, governmental actors, national or transnational law is considered as BAD for IG. This dogma - to exclude classical means of representativity or Democracy - is as radical as to refuse to listen to engineers, business, researchers, civil society who contribute directly or indirectly to IG. And to label the ones calling for respect of classical representativity or democracy "radical multilateralist" is simply unfair. When you look at all the institutions performing in the IG, irony is that the only ones with some global, transnational representativity and legitimacy are the UN ones, including the ITU. From ICANN, to IETF, ISOC or the WEF none of these are an inch close to legitimate or democratic standards. And I do not buy the idea that IETF's MSism could be the perfect example of an 'enhanced form of participative democracy", as David Froomkin has tried to convince himself of by explaining that IETF'sMSism was an Habermas compliant ultimate form of democratic governance. So to suggest that we could achieve a Participative MS Democratic model for IG by telling everyone that evil for IG emerges from bodies related to national, transnational, UN circles, is a clear form of democratic bashing. Telling us like Milton does, that we should aim at a global citizenry that would be the perfect level of representativity for IG is pretty "charming", but we, our children, grand children, grand grand children will probably never see any such level of citizenry. We might see ourselves as citizen of the World, the global community of citizen still has no legal, democratic fabric and existence. Victor Hugo called for the United Sates of Europe back in the nineteen century and we are still centuries away from it. So between the classical existing frames of representativity (and legitimacy) and the utopian (without topos) Interland you tend to call for, one can see that, in the meantime, a few are still holding the strings of IG for their benefits, having no consideration for social justice, fair digital development for all... To transform the current asymmetry means to root our fundamental approach and reflection is "simple" democratic principles. Not in vague, undefined, floating definitions. This only helps to maintain the unfair setting of power in IG. Do we know what is Democracy? Yes. Can we enhance it? Probably, yes. Do we know what is "Enhanced Democracy"? I do not see what it is, would be somehow afraid to understand that it is a form of democracy that works better than democracy: most people explaining us that Nations, including Democracies are unable to perform their collective duty, ranging from Nicolas Berggruen and its digital friends in San Francisco to radical MSists, including Jeremy : "October 25, 2014 : it is almost a truism that for a variety of reasons nation states no longer possess either the legitimacy to claim, or the capacity to exercise, sole authority over global governance particularly in regimes (such as Internet governance) where public policy decisions have significant transnational impacts." I am not a pro apprenti-sorcier. By constantly rejecting the classical elements/achievements/principles of our political life and societies, one is feeding the beast that is rejecting any form of progress for IG in terms of participation, inclusiveness at the citizen level, through old and new means. For many of them, MSists of today do ally willingly or not with the current owners of the Internet, and its new born cousin, the Internet of things. You cannot ignore that. JC Le 24 oct. 2014 à 23:17, Avri Doria a écrit : > > On 24-Oct-14 16:15, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> I think that Avri's definition remains Avri's idealistic view of a digital Wonderland that she is by the same token contributing to keep at bay from any form of democratic thinking with such non sense (no offense Avri!): > > No offense taken. We see the world and the functioning of institutions differently. I can live with that. I do not believe my descriptions are idealistic, I believe I am describing what I see and the environment I work within. What I think is not only normative, it is descriptive. As with representative democracy, in the places in which some model exists, participatory democracy is not a perfected thing. I agree is is something we strive to make better, and in the trenches of these institutions we keep striving to improve it. > > I do find it ironic that during a period when we are striving to find a way to allow the US government to finally give up its solitary position guarding the stability of the Internet, we are still being accused of supporting their continued position. > > > 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 avri at acm.org Sat Oct 25 00:52:29 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 00:52:29 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [] Re: [] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <544AC1EE.20 20906@acm.org> Message-ID: <544B2C8D.6070702@acm.org> On 25-Oct-14 00:12, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > The irony might lay somewhere else: it appears that your vision of a future (to-be-achieved) MSism tends to ignore a necessary critic of what MS was and still is. It also appears to start with the premise that any current form of classical representativity or democracy should be seen as non valid form to contribute to the future of Internet Governance, in order to switch from the current asymmetry to a so-called Participative MS Democratic form of Internet Governance. The irony is that everything that is related to classical representation, governmental actors, national or transnational law is considered as BAD for IG. This dogma - to exclude classical means of representativity or Democracy - is as radical as to refuse to listen to engineers, business, researchers, civil society who contribute directly or indirectly to IG. And to label the ones calling for respect of classical representativity or democracy "radical multilateralist" is simply unfair. Hi, This is just not the case. I believe that the representatives from government participate among the other stakeholders and indeed form a stakeholder group, or groups, of their own. I believe multistakeholderism (m17m) must include the governments, doing what governments do, in the discussions among all stakeholders. Without that component, it would be a problem. My definitions, and I believe those of many, builds on representative democracy by including it in the mix. My argument for equal footing at least in all discussions, includes governments as well as the other stakeholders. > that evil for IG emerges If there is emergent evil (though I am not sure I believe in evil as I am not a Manichean) I certainly would _not_ define it as all coming from governments. If I were to define something that could be called emergent evil in Ig, I might define it as stemming from an absence of equal footing in all discussions. avri m17m.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Sat Oct 25 01:29:15 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 05:29:15 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [] Re: [] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <544B2C8D.6070702@acm.org> References: <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <544AC1EE.20 20906@acm.org> ,<544B2C8D.6070702@acm.org> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A367F78FB@UCEXLWP007.ep.parl.union.eu> Great thread! Thanks!! Did anyone touch upon enforcement of agreed rules for (internet) governance? Or turning that around, MSism ends where enforcement begins? From another sphere; "Cold harmonisation" was a concept describing the state of the European patent regime before the EPO became a bureaucracy with a distinct self interest. Back then, nobody forced parties to the convention (EPC) to get in line, but the mere possibility of that the same (national) patent could be granted in Munich and rejected in Stockholm[1] created an architectural incentive to align granting practices on a voluntary basis. //Erik "’Legislating’ is, by definition, a law-making activity that in a democratic society can only occur through the use of a procedure that is public in nature and, in that sense, ‘transparent’. Otherwise, it would not be possible to ascribe to ‘law’ the virtue of being the expression of the will of those that must obey it, which is the very foundation of its legitimacy as an indisputable edict. In a representative democracy, it must be possible for citizens to find out about the legislative procedure, since if this were not so, citizens would be unable to hold their representatives politically accountable, as they must be by virtue of their electoral mandate. In the context of this public procedure, transparency therefore plays a key role that is somewhat different from its role in administrative procedures. While, in administrative procedures, transparency serves the very specific purpose of ensuring that the authorities are subject to the rule of law, in the legislative procedure it serves the purpose of legitimising the law itself and with it the legal order as a whole." - AG in C‑280/11 http://euwiki.org/Ensuring_utmost_transparency_--_Free_Software_and_Open_Standards_under_the_Rules_of_Procedure_of_the_European_Parliament#Legislative_Openness [1] The Pettersson Patent http://www.ffii.se/erik/misc/pettersson/ ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Saturday 25 October 2014 06:52 To: Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [] Re: [] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 25-Oct-14 00:12, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: The irony might lay somewhere else: it appears that your vision of a future (to-be-achieved) MSism tends to ignore a necessary critic of what MS was and still is. It also appears to start with the premise that any current form of classical representativity or democracy should be seen as non valid form to contribute to the future of Internet Governance, in order to switch from the current asymmetry to a so-called Participative MS Democratic form of Internet Governance. The irony is that everything that is related to classical representation, governmental actors, national or transnational law is considered as BAD for IG. This dogma - to exclude classical means of representativity or Democracy - is as radical as to refuse to listen to engineers, business, researchers, civil society who contribute directly or indirectly to IG. And to label the ones calling for respect of classical representativity or democracy "radical multilateralist" is simply unfair. Hi, This is just not the case. I believe that the representatives from government participate among the other stakeholders and indeed form a stakeholder group, or groups, of their own. I believe multistakeholderism (m17m) must include the governments, doing what governments do, in the discussions among all stakeholders. Without that component, it would be a problem. My definitions, and I believe those of many, builds on representative democracy by including it in the mix. My argument for equal footing at least in all discussions, includes governments as well as the other stakeholders. that evil for IG emerges If there is emergent evil (though I am not sure I believe in evil as I am not a Manichean) I certainly would not define it as all coming from governments. If I were to define something that could be called emergent evil in Ig, I might define it as stemming from an absence of equal footing in all discussions. avri m17m.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 06:41:34 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:41:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Final IGF contribution for endorsement In-Reply-To: <544A8969.1070408@eff.org> References: <544A8969.1070408@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy Very sorry not to have replied earlier, but it’s a busy time. As you know I too have been banging on since before the beginning about strengthening the IGF, doing intersessional working groups, having at least one day of the annuals devoted to NETmundial-style collective debates of an issue or two, etc. I think there’s a bit of new openness to at least considering steps in this direction, in particular because the Brazilians have expressed interest in it for João Pessoa, and Janis has come around a bit (had a long talk with him in LA on this), as evidenced a little by the chair’s report on Istanbul. The Dec. 1-3 open consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva may be the single best opportunity we’ve ever had to press the case for the sorts of steps the IGC and others have advocated since 2005, so hopefully we can muster a coalition of strategically oriented and collaborative participants there. Since you’ve already posted the doc for endorsement it’s too late to take this into account, but a couple small thoughts for our continuing dialogues: snipping > On Oct 24, 2014, at 7:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Personally, I’d have preferred a shorter and more narrowly focused letter that lays out a model, rather than an expository grazing over multiple issues and historical background. For ex, what I tried to suggest in the Istanbul main session that was nominally supposed to discuss the IGF’s role (I was in a different room and the RM garbled the reading of my typed text) was that we could *Pick one or two issues that are pressing and mature enough for fruitful discussion and set up working groups for each that’d collaborate online and also and meet face to face alongside the open consultations *Establish open online platforms for inputs *Ask the MAG and its chair, with the assistance of the secretariat, to conduct active outreach to encourage participation from developing country governments *The groups produce draft discussion documents by two months before the regular meeting, followed by another round of public input and a final revision taking on board the views expressed *The documents could then be discussed on a single day of the programme dedicated to this task to see if either recommendations or at least a statement reflecting main contending viewpoints could be agreed, and then circulated to other relevant organisations. Or something like that….in any event, a concrete proposal that people could debate in December would be useful. > > Introduction > > there is a Secretariat, with limited resources and a narrow self-assessed mandate to effect structural changes to the IGF > I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. Where/when was Chengetai and his merry band of volunteers and part-time workers/consultants mandated to effect structural change on behalf of the global community? > , and there is a MAG which, overall, considers itself a programme committee only and is similarly reluctant to depart from established structures and formats. > I think it’s somewhat difficult to ascribe collective intentionality to the MAG because there’s been very little self-reflective discussion of its role, the membership evolves, and a good chunk of the group is fairly disengaged. But there certainly have been members who’d not be accurately portrayed as above. > The IGF would benefit from the appointment of a new, charismatic and visionary Executive Coordinator, with multi-stakeholder support, to personally evangelise for and drive the necessary changes. > Apparently DESA is again considering an EC. > Even the present consultation, which is limited to “format”, “schedule” and “themes”, reveals a certain narrowness of thinking in this regard. It does not lend itself very well to suggestions about the structural evolution of the IGF that might allow it to more fully execute its mandate, such as significant changes to its management structure,[1] the execution of a coordinating function,[2] or the establishment of issue-specific multistakeholder working groups[2]. > Agree, and people should push for a broadened focus in December and in the run up. > Format > > Perhaps the most significant departure from previous practice at the Istanbul meeting was the new Best Practice Forum mechanism. > Agree but would add there were a few other bits to build on, such as the human rights roundtable forwarding recs to the HRC; the launch of the Internet Governance Forum Support Association; the effort by a few folks lead by Jeanette and Stephanie to draft a proposal on mandate extension, which is still live on the IGF site; the use of the platform to announce other initiatives like the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms; the chair’s call for inputs on actions taken by stakeholders as a result of participation at the IGF (inadequate responses, alas); the endorsement by many of continuing the NN discussion in Brazil, which is sort of new; and the chair’s somewhat sotto voce call to the MAG, in consultation with the entire community, to consider issues that could be taken forward through inter-sessional work leading up to Brazil, with development held up as a thematic organizer. > Schedule > > The scheduling of the IGF should cover the full year, including timelines for working groups to develop concrete proposals to be taken further at the IGF. This would give it the capacity to sustain a work programme between meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern. > Good idea > Workshops are partly scored based on whether panelists are confirmed to attend, but in many cases panelists’ attendance is contingent on the workshop being approved > Unfortunately (for the statement), this is not true. At least in the three years I did it, this was never a criteria for scoring. The criteria for workshop evaluation that was posted (which I dare you to now find on the IGF website) were these: In evaluating workshop proposals, each MAG member will grade the proposal on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) based upon the following considerations: · Proposal is well thought-through and complete, · Relevance of proposal to 2014 IGF themes, (please see the link) · List of proposed speakers, and whether the speakers have been contacted by the proposer or confirmed, · Is this the first time this individual or organization has made a proposal?”, · New workshop topic/innovative format (the “wow factor”), · Developing country participation, · Specificity in the problem/question/challenged to be addressed, · Remote participation plans. · Diversity of participants (gender, geography, stakeholder group, perspective), I don’t know if you’d be willing to delete this paragraph before seeking further endorsements, but it makes it difficult to sign as is. > Themes > > The national IGFs should feed issues into the regional IGFs which should in turn feed issues into the Global IGF so that the the issues at the global level in part reflect the concerns and challenges raised by the national and regional IGFs – a reporting in session by IGFs (as is currently the case) is inadequate.[1] > > There was discussion in Istanbul about the need to better link and flow between national regional and global IGFs. One of the various problems is that it is rather difficult to do this when the national and regionals are independently organized with no standard model or need for approval/endorsement (non-binding criteria they should meet are at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-initiatives but are thin and lack any implementation/review mechanism). > We propose that the overall theme of the 2015 IGF meeting should be “Internet governance for sustainable development and promotion of human rights”. > Need to say this in December and convince the new MAG. Basta. Thanks for doing this. Best Bill *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ekenyanito at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 08:10:18 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 15:10:18 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] ICYMI- What to Watch at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 from Access Message-ID: Dear all, ICYMI- Here's Access' Plenipot policy brief, "What to Watch at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014," Hope you might find this resource useful it provides an overview of the top procedural and substantive concerns to look out for at the Plenipot as well as recommendations for relevant and productive areas for the ITU to focus its work on in the coming four years. Please feel free to share: https://www.accessnow.org/page/-/docs/WhattoWatchatPlenipot_2.pdf -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito @ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 ​​ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 08:51:58 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 05:51:58 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> Well first of all by definition “those who contribute” are “self-selected”… they chose to contribute and were not selected by others such as organizations, community groups, nation states or whoever to contribute on their behalf… Demographically etc. they practically are an “elite” in that they are part of that extremely small sub-set of possible contributors who have the skills, knowledge, resources (including time/money) to contribute where others who might have a concern or might be impacted do not have sufficient skills, knowledge, resources etc. … M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:25 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen'; michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations How does 'those who contribute' equate to a self selected elite? On 24 October 2014 5:59:09 pm "michael gurstein" wrote: The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM To: David Allen Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear David Allen, It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for ​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen wrote: Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? David On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” ​ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 06:41:34 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:41:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Final IGF contribution for endorsement In-Reply-To: <544A8969.1070408@eff.org> References: <544A8969.1070408@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy Very sorry not to have replied earlier, but it’s a busy time. As you know I too have been banging on since before the beginning about strengthening the IGF, doing intersessional working groups, having at least one day of the annuals devoted to NETmundial-style collective debates of an issue or two, etc. I think there’s a bit of new openness to at least considering steps in this direction, in particular because the Brazilians have expressed interest in it for João Pessoa, and Janis has come around a bit (had a long talk with him in LA on this), as evidenced a little by the chair’s report on Istanbul. The Dec. 1-3 open consultations and MAG meetings in Geneva may be the single best opportunity we’ve ever had to press the case for the sorts of steps the IGC and others have advocated since 2005, so hopefully we can muster a coalition of strategically oriented and collaborative participants there. Since you’ve already posted the doc for endorsement it’s too late to take this into account, but a couple small thoughts for our continuing dialogues: snipping > On Oct 24, 2014, at 7:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Personally, I’d have preferred a shorter and more narrowly focused letter that lays out a model, rather than an expository grazing over multiple issues and historical background. For ex, what I tried to suggest in the Istanbul main session that was nominally supposed to discuss the IGF’s role (I was in a different room and the RM garbled the reading of my typed text) was that we could *Pick one or two issues that are pressing and mature enough for fruitful discussion and set up working groups for each that’d collaborate online and also and meet face to face alongside the open consultations *Establish open online platforms for inputs *Ask the MAG and its chair, with the assistance of the secretariat, to conduct active outreach to encourage participation from developing country governments *The groups produce draft discussion documents by two months before the regular meeting, followed by another round of public input and a final revision taking on board the views expressed *The documents could then be discussed on a single day of the programme dedicated to this task to see if either recommendations or at least a statement reflecting main contending viewpoints could be agreed, and then circulated to other relevant organisations. Or something like that….in any event, a concrete proposal that people could debate in December would be useful. > > Introduction > > there is a Secretariat, with limited resources and a narrow self-assessed mandate to effect structural changes to the IGF > I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. Where/when was Chengetai and his merry band of volunteers and part-time workers/consultants mandated to effect structural change on behalf of the global community? > , and there is a MAG which, overall, considers itself a programme committee only and is similarly reluctant to depart from established structures and formats. > I think it’s somewhat difficult to ascribe collective intentionality to the MAG because there’s been very little self-reflective discussion of its role, the membership evolves, and a good chunk of the group is fairly disengaged. But there certainly have been members who’d not be accurately portrayed as above. > The IGF would benefit from the appointment of a new, charismatic and visionary Executive Coordinator, with multi-stakeholder support, to personally evangelise for and drive the necessary changes. > Apparently DESA is again considering an EC. > Even the present consultation, which is limited to “format”, “schedule” and “themes”, reveals a certain narrowness of thinking in this regard. It does not lend itself very well to suggestions about the structural evolution of the IGF that might allow it to more fully execute its mandate, such as significant changes to its management structure,[1] the execution of a coordinating function,[2] or the establishment of issue-specific multistakeholder working groups[2]. > Agree, and people should push for a broadened focus in December and in the run up. > Format > > Perhaps the most significant departure from previous practice at the Istanbul meeting was the new Best Practice Forum mechanism. > Agree but would add there were a few other bits to build on, such as the human rights roundtable forwarding recs to the HRC; the launch of the Internet Governance Forum Support Association; the effort by a few folks lead by Jeanette and Stephanie to draft a proposal on mandate extension, which is still live on the IGF site; the use of the platform to announce other initiatives like the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms; the chair’s call for inputs on actions taken by stakeholders as a result of participation at the IGF (inadequate responses, alas); the endorsement by many of continuing the NN discussion in Brazil, which is sort of new; and the chair’s somewhat sotto voce call to the MAG, in consultation with the entire community, to consider issues that could be taken forward through inter-sessional work leading up to Brazil, with development held up as a thematic organizer. > Schedule > > The scheduling of the IGF should cover the full year, including timelines for working groups to develop concrete proposals to be taken further at the IGF. This would give it the capacity to sustain a work programme between meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern. > Good idea > Workshops are partly scored based on whether panelists are confirmed to attend, but in many cases panelists’ attendance is contingent on the workshop being approved > Unfortunately (for the statement), this is not true. At least in the three years I did it, this was never a criteria for scoring. The criteria for workshop evaluation that was posted (which I dare you to now find on the IGF website) were these: In evaluating workshop proposals, each MAG member will grade the proposal on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) based upon the following considerations: · Proposal is well thought-through and complete, · Relevance of proposal to 2014 IGF themes, (please see the link) · List of proposed speakers, and whether the speakers have been contacted by the proposer or confirmed, · Is this the first time this individual or organization has made a proposal?”, · New workshop topic/innovative format (the “wow factor”), · Developing country participation, · Specificity in the problem/question/challenged to be addressed, · Remote participation plans. · Diversity of participants (gender, geography, stakeholder group, perspective), I don’t know if you’d be willing to delete this paragraph before seeking further endorsements, but it makes it difficult to sign as is. > Themes > > The national IGFs should feed issues into the regional IGFs which should in turn feed issues into the Global IGF so that the the issues at the global level in part reflect the concerns and challenges raised by the national and regional IGFs – a reporting in session by IGFs (as is currently the case) is inadequate.[1] > > There was discussion in Istanbul about the need to better link and flow between national regional and global IGFs. One of the various problems is that it is rather difficult to do this when the national and regionals are independently organized with no standard model or need for approval/endorsement (non-binding criteria they should meet are at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-initiatives but are thin and lack any implementation/review mechanism). > We propose that the overall theme of the 2015 IGF meeting should be “Internet governance for sustainable development and promotion of human rights”. > Need to say this in December and convince the new MAG. Basta. Thanks for doing this. Best Bill *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 09:05:46 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 08:05:46 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:43 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable or is the issue WHO are the decision makers? What if everyone were allowed to be a decision maker? —in a > Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected > elite “stakeholders”. > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM > To: David Allen > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 > hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > > Dear David Allen, > > > > It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for > different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 > seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others > listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the > government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for > Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that > the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve > the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the > Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model > is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those > elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. > > > > There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be > advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to > problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder > process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own > respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to > creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or > ineffectively resolve. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Sivasubramanian M > > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen > wrote: > > Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. > Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their > representatives, in the first place ... > > > > But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a > place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm > ... > > > > In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the > ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 > billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there > is no ballot box, they can speak? > > > > Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be > representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? > > > > David > > > > > > On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts > participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a > working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected > representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to > class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early > in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion > that the participating stakeholders are not representative enough. > > > > The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, > and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND > broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory > Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or > broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this > by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 09:25:16 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:25:16 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06c501cff057$1fb04360$5f10ca20$@gmail.com> Interesting, I'm curious as to how you would operationalize this. M -----Original Message----- From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:06 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Sivasubramanian M; David Allen; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:43 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable or is the issue WHO are the decision makers? What if everyone were allowed to be a decision maker? —in a > Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to > self-selected elite “stakeholders”. > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of > Sivasubramanian M > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM > To: David Allen > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] > Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint > recommendations > > > > Dear David Allen, > > > > It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for > different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have > 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 > million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending > this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would > not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a > Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the > Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day > to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, > in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the > larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. > > > > There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model > would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always > find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think > of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting > Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. > Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions > to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > Sivasubramanian M > > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen > wrote: > > Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. > Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of > their representatives, in the first place ... > > > > But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a > place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm > ... > > > > In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak > through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange > for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone > there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? > > > > Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want > to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? > > > > David > > > > > > On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > > > It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts > participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has > a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than > elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be > very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. > And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder > model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders are not representative enough. > > > > The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its > intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism > DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein > > wrote: > > MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory > Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or > broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts > this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 11:52:50 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 08:52:50 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org>,<038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> Message-ID: <078201cff06b$bb211c70$31635550$@gmail.com> Inline… From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:32 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote: I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems. However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant. I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model that we hear from JNC members are directed at immature implementations of that model of which - here's the point - proponents of multi-stakeholderism have themselves been highly critical! [MG>] so what else is the JNC to comment upon… there is no definition, no articulation of principles, no useful formulation that one can respond to and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy—cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one—international public health, food and nutrition, international resource management, environmental regulation and so on are others. To accomplish this the proponents from the USG, from the WEF, from Google etc. provide a sop to Civil Society and gain their compliance and along with it a degree of legitimation by giving them the illusion of effective participation (the outcome of NetMundial anyone… An extremely risky tradeoff by anyone’s measure and one that is particularly disgusting because it is being agreed to by CS folks (for the most part thankfully still confined in the IG space) without the agreement or even knowledge of either their constituencies such as they are (APC are you listening) or the broader global civil society which they are meant to provide voice for. They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the IGF, which is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree) which reiterates criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the multi-stakeholder model that we have been repeating endlessly for almost a decade: bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/ [MG>] I/we/the JNC etc. are not commenting on the various “immature implementations” of MSism but rather on MSism as a governance model meant to supplant, supersede, replace democracy as the aspirational model for governance in modern society. The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't be attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for abandoning the ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just because they haven't yet been achieved. Their achievement will be the work of decades, not years. [MG>] yes the replacement of a model of governance that has taken millennia to build and cost the lives of thousands of brave folks and may yet cost the lives of even more (see for example the streets of Hong Kong… BTW, the young protestors in Hong Kong aren’t protesting for multi-stakeholderism where the dominant corporate barons of contemporary China can and will sit at the table with the dominant (civil society?) party structures and dominant governmental structures to determine the fate of the Hong Kong people, that is what they have already! They are putting their lives, bodies and futures on the line for DEMOCRACY, the rule of the people by the people. Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that multi-stakeholderism is not democratic if it doesn't represent all the people, and that if participants in multi-stakeholder processes are anything less then everybody, they are "elites". This reflects a very shallow conception of democracy, which for example excludes deliberative democratic practices where in which we attempt to include all affected perspectives, rather than all individuals. [MG>] huh? MSism by any of the definitions currently on the table (apart from the bizarre flourish of calling it “Participatory Democracy”--I can call my cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn’t make him any less of a cat or any more of dog) doesn’t “represent” anyone other than those who show up or are allowed to show up and through them the interests that they represent. BTW, I’m all in favour of Deliberative (and Participatory for that matter) Democracy, the problem is that neither of these bears any relationship at all either to the current practices or “theories” of MSism. As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to date. But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme that underlies the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which is really nothing more than to realise democratic principles on an international level where nation states are no longer an adequate fit. [MG>] huh? Are you saying that we create democracy by annulling it… we really are in Orwell land. And why this pre-occupation with the nation state in this context. Democracy began outside of nation states, certainly developed within the context of nation states but is neither by definition nor by necessary practice confined within the framework of nation states. BTW I completely agree that there is no longer a particularly good fit between democratic accountability and traditional nation state structures and as I mentioned, in what I think was my first contribution to this thread, I am extremely interested in collaborating with others in exploring alternative strategies for democratic practice which better fit with the opportunities and risks of the globalized Internet era. We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views here that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth there is on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their own list where they can advance their models of state-based ordering, while the rest of can work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment. [MG>] you can continue with your deliberate misstatements all you like, they just cast a negative shadow on whatever else you are commenting on… M -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 8 10:39:16 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 14:39:16 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] IAB soliciting comments on mitigation of pervasive surveillance: In-Reply-To: References: <54345D63.80902@well.com>, Message-ID: <34d84f7096f94cc38d709cf88ef13636@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> FYI, IAB requests comments on pervasive surveillance mitigation. Lee ________________________________ From: Dave Farber via ip Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2014 5:54 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] IAB soliciting comments on mitigation of pervasive surveillance: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Mike Liebhold" > Date: Oct 7, 2014 5:38 PM Subject: IAB soliciting comments on mitigation of pervasive surveillance: To: "Dewayne Hendricks" >, "Dave Farber" > Cc: Hi Dewayne and Dave, The Inernet Architecture Board is soliciting comments on two drafts that may be of interested in: Pervasive Attack: A Threat Model and Problem Statement https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-pervasive-problem-01 "Documents published in 2013 have revealed several classes of "pervasive" attack on Internet communications. In this document, we review the main attacks that have been published, and develop a threat model that describes these pervasive attacks. Based on this threat model, we discuss the techniques that can be employed in Internet protocol design to increase the protocols robustness to pervasive attacks." [snip] Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A Threat Model and Problem Statement https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privsec-confidentiality-threat-00 "Documents published in 2013 have revealed several classes of "pervasive" attack on Internet communications. In this document we develop a threat model that describes these pervasive attacks. We start by assuming a completely passive adversary with an interest in indiscriminate eavesdropping that can observe network traffic, then expand the threat model with a set of verified attacks that have been published. Based on this threat model, we discuss the techniques that can be employed in Internet protocol design to increase the protocols robustness to pervasive attacks." [snip] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [perpass] IAB security/privacy programme PM draft Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:35:17 -0400 From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall To: perpass at ietf.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 As the showrunner for the confidentiality effort in the IAB privacy and security program, please do share your feedback with us. We are also contemplating a companion document on mitigations for the threats outlined in the threat model. best, Joe On 9/15/14, 10:56 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hi all, > > Richard and a few folks started work on documenting a problem > statement [1] some time ago. As I think was stated here before it > seems like a good plan for that to be progressed as part of the > IAB's re-factored security/privacy programme. So Brian Trammell has > picked up the pen and pushed out [2]. > > Comments very welcome (I've still to read it myself so will send my > comments here too when I've had a chance), > > Cheers, S. > > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-pervasive-problem [2] > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privsec-confidentiality-threat > > _______________________________________________ perpass mailing > list perpass at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > - -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall Chief Technologist Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I ST NW STE 1100 Washington DC 20006-4011 (p) 202-407-8825 (f) 202-637-0968 joe at cdt.org PGP: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10 1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUNBZEAAoJEF+GaYdAqahxrEsP/28vDnQatU/cplFLiWz9+Xda 8lscV2uhxEaQYHgy4wvsd03vgfFCE/RfG7AwX8h1+S7XDUg27GpUHLPeXJesF6cy WOSnzYN6K/WmDMn8AKYv+/FDYf6JdB5yc0zmiivAbOTDwsi6LTbRMvwRhMyUXlEM OeZlbZz5GkyMmDccUNSjS6B8WrGnxilnQX07c7bRgeq9DR5DB8QwaRsg66Z757Bi vSqDAG/87aKU8Pov5gRRHNY9QskOneuFWEIOO4pl+eqodx3c45Lyx7Ain7vjy/nO l92FTyOyf47I99vWWyrit/KBPImxNFnP2txZu1WuWXz/yNYCKxrOMiTdIycjVwVK 7jpfcAtC7IB11+nMTy4xNl4kzRBcZnCXVaWhZ+b+5/SuZX4qKrwB4YeFlQQKJXXY +F9XeG1MAjaF4qmNFeLsIUO0wadRXQ23RSlKfDqNe8s+Y2BsvoUepzxmsbSsJCJ0 NAGEGNqBnwXQwbaJO9MtTU0RzXbe1KzJw26eHY5/nfCBfyn2hYw9TjzH0cmAOOXX IcxVYBfJLu/tUNvxtpaPhlu3yvzcU99KxdjLpBsD/wOk4mfblg9AAZiwxXdq5k7+ nCSPz+CodE2OWt7UsqdCIdBiW/yaC2qnLcnMw197lRxJnDwE2NrbQx72AQAd6u9Z ndxTiZ7dEsIuOJE0OCaL =4SpJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list perpass at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 17:46:42 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 16:46:42 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <078201cff06b$bb211c70$31635550$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <078201cff06b$bb211c70$31635550$@gmail.com> Message-ID: remake the governance of the global (Internet)Comments inline On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Inline… > > > > > On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > > > [MG>] so what else is the JNC to comment upon… there is no definition, no > articulation of principles, no useful formulation that one can respond to sure there is, you just ignore them. Sala just posted yet another. > and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere > want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. NO, the opposite is true. The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)" > Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions > (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy—cheap) or maybe > it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of > giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which > formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the > variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only > one— No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance. > > > > An extremely risky tradeoff by anyone’s measure and one that is particularly > disgusting slanging again. because it is being agreed to by CS folks (for the most part > thankfully still confined in the IG space) without the agreement or even > knowledge of either their constituencies such as they are (APC are you > listening) or the broader global civil society which they are meant to > provide voice for. > > They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these > implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention > this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will > keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said > that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder > Internet governance? Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism. We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial. > > [MG>] huh? MSism by any of the definitions currently on the table (apart > from the bizarre flourish of calling it “Participatory Democracy”--I can > call my cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn’t make him any less of a > cat or any more of dog) doesn’t “represent” anyone other than those who show > up or are allowed to show up and through them the interests that they > represent. BTW, I’m all in favour of Deliberative (and Participatory for > that matter) Democracy, the problem is that neither of these bears any > relationship at all either to the current practices or “theories” of MSism. untrue. If you had any experience with the "classical" as you call it, you would know this. > [MG>] huh? Are you saying that we create democracy by annulling it… we > really are in Orwell land. And why this pre-occupation with the nation state > in this context. Democracy began outside of nation states, certainly > developed within the context of nation states but is neither by definition > nor by necessary practice confined within the framework of nation states. > BTW I completely agree that there is no longer a particularly good fit > between democratic accountability and traditional nation state structures > and as I mentioned, in what I think was my first contribution to this > thread, I am extremely interested in collaborating with others in exploring > alternative strategies for democratic practice which better fit with the > opportunities and risks of the globalized Internet era. > > We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views here > that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth there is > on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their own list where > they can advance their models of state-based ordering, while the rest of can > work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment. > > [MG>] you can continue with your deliberate misstatements all you like, they > just cast a negative shadow on whatever else you are commenting on… more slanging rgds, McTim From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Sat Oct 25 18:08:29 2014 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:08:29 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Gurstein's critiques... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear BB people, Your list provides a richly nuanced and refreshingly transparent resource to witness the evolution of your work. Thank you for making it as accessible as it has been thus far. I¹m learning from you. That said, a number of question have come up for me as I continue to follow your workŠ As a listserv-lurking researcher studying Best Bits as an evolving community of practice situated/navigating/negotiating between/among what seem to be conflicted constructions of collective, coalition, community, constituency, lobbying group, etc. I confess I remain flummoxed by what seems to be a relentless critique (teetering sometimes between idealism and realism), primarily by Gurstein but others as well, of various attempts to strike common ground on a number of difficult questions/issues, most recently, the MSism issue (see email below). Lingering in many statements and responses to them seems to be the issue of accountability. To BB posters from civil society organizations, would it be correct to presume that your postings represent your organizations/constituencies/funders/clients/members' views or your personal views? If the latter, i.e., primarily personal views, would it be fair to presume that one cannot then also adopt a discourse of speaking Œin the interests of others¹? For example, when some people (like Gurstein) posts, it seems unclear to me whose specific interests are being represented. Is Gurstein speaking as an sanctioned citizen of Canada, a public intellectual, a spokesperson for a specific community, etc? Also, it has been difficult from a research perspective to determine the extent to which funding sources (be they philanthropic, personal resources, work support, or otherwise) influence BB posters¹ viewpoints and positions. For instance, while some BB contributors do work to secure funding for others to travel to the various locations where your work together gets done, others find ways to support their own travel. I¹m curious about the privilege inherent in being able to find funds for others or for oneself to do such travel. To what extent it there recognition of privilege in terms of voice in your deliberations? To Michael specifically, related to your Œinline¹ contributions below, for research purposes, where might I find your own definitions, articulations of principles in clear and unambiguous terms? Also, what deliberative processes contributed to their construction? Finally, in your IG work, to whom/what constituency, place, institution, community, client, employer etc. are you yourself primarily accountable? Thank you, 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 Fax 514.398.8557 http://www.mcgill.ca/ahcs From: michael gurstein Reply-To: michael gurstein Date: Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 11:52 AM To: Untitled , Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > InlineŠ > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:32 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] > Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems. > However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making > progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant. > > I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model that we > hear from JNC members are directed at immature implementations of that model > of which - here's the point - proponents of multi-stakeholderism have > themselves been highly critical! > [MG>] so what else is the JNC to comment uponŠ there is no definition, no > articulation of principles, no useful formulation that one can respond to and > yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want > to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. Maybe it > is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a > bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy‹cheap) or maybe it is a > calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the > global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and > legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of > global governance of which the Internet is only one‹international public > health, food and nutrition, international resource management, environmental > regulation and so on are others. To accomplish this the proponents from the > USG, from the WEF, from Google etc. provide a sop to Civil Society and gain > their compliance and along with it a degree of legitimation by giving them > the illusion of effective participation (the outcome of NetMundial anyoneŠ > > An extremely risky tradeoff by anyone¹s measure and one that is particularly > disgusting because it is being agreed to by CS folks (for the most part > thankfully still confined in the IG space) without the agreement or even > knowledge of either their constituencies such as they are (APC are you > listening) or the broader global civil society which they are meant to provide > voice for. > > They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these > implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? > Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep > maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that > civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder > Internet governance? > > Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the IGF, which > is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree) which reiterates > criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the multi-stakeholder model that we > have been repeating endlessly for almost a decade: > > bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/ > [MG>] I/we/the JNC etc. are not commenting on the various ³immature > implementations² of MSism but rather on MSism as a governance model meant to > supplant, supersede, replace democracy as the aspirational model for > governance in modern society. > > The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't be > attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for abandoning the > ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just because they haven't yet been > achieved. Their achievement will be the work of decades, not years. > [MG>] yes the replacement of a model of governance that has taken millennia to > build and cost the lives of thousands of brave folks and may yet cost the > lives of even more (see for example the streets of Hong KongŠ BTW, the young > protestors in Hong Kong aren¹t protesting for multi-stakeholderism where the > dominant corporate barons of contemporary China can and will sit at the table > with the dominant (civil society?) party structures and dominant governmental > structures to determine the fate of the Hong Kong people, that is what they > have already! They are putting their lives, bodies and futures on the line for > DEMOCRACY, the rule of the people by the people. > > Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that multi-stakeholderism is not > democratic if it doesn't represent all the people, and that if participants in > multi-stakeholder processes are anything less then everybody, they are > "elites". This reflects a very shallow conception of democracy, which for > example excludes deliberative democratic practices where in which we attempt > to include all affected perspectives, rather than all individuals. > [MG>] huh? MSism by any of the definitions currently on the table (apart from > the bizarre flourish of calling it ³Participatory Democracy²--I can call my > cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn¹t make him any less of a cat or any > more of dog) doesn¹t ³represent² anyone other than those who show up or are > allowed to show up and through them the interests that they represent. BTW, > I¹m all in favour of Deliberative (and Participatory for that matter) > Democracy, the problem is that neither of these bears any relationship at all > either to the current practices or ³theories² of MSism. > > As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to date. > But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme that underlies > the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which is really nothing more > than to realise democratic principles on an international level where nation > states are no longer an adequate fit. > [MG>] huh? Are you saying that we create democracy by annulling itŠ we really > are in Orwell land. And why this pre-occupation with the nation state in this > context. Democracy began outside of nation states, certainly developed within > the context of nation states but is neither by definition nor by necessary > practice confined within the framework of nation states. BTW I completely > agree that there is no longer a particularly good fit between democratic > accountability and traditional nation state structures and as I mentioned, in > what I think was my first contribution to this thread, I am extremely > interested in collaborating with others in exploring alternative strategies > for democratic practice which better fit with the opportunities and risks of > the globalized Internet era. > > We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views here > that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth there is on > this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their own list where they > can advance their models of state-based ordering, while the rest of can work > on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment. > [MG>] you can continue with your deliberate misstatements all you like, they > just cast a negative shadow on whatever else you are commenting onŠ > > M > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > ____________________________________________________________ You received this > message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To > unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 19:17:50 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 16:17:50 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <078201cff06b$bb211c70$31635550$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <088c01cff0a9$e5cd4cd0$b167e670$@gmail.com> More... -----Original Message----- From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:47 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations remake the governance of the global (Internet)Comments inline On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Inline… > > > > > On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > > > [MG>] so what else is the JNC to comment upon… there is no definition, > no articulation of principles, no useful formulation that one can > respond to sure there is, you just ignore them. Sala just posted yet another. [MG>] huh? and that incoherent, internally contradictory mess has been approved by who exactly? (and sorry Sala you tried your best... > and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and > elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. NO, the opposite is true. The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)" [MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has to do with my comments... > Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of > intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to > buy—cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by > others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) > corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their > increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global > governance of which the Internet is only one— No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance. [MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and take a look at http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steercom%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014 etc.etc. > > > An extremely risky tradeoff by anyone’s measure and one that is > particularly disgusting slanging again. [MG>] hardly slanging... it was a straightforward expression of my opinion because it is being agreed to by CS folks (for the most part > thankfully still confined in the IG space) without the agreement or > even knowledge of either their constituencies such as they are (APC > are you > listening) or the broader global civil society which they are meant to > provide voice for. > > They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these > implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to > mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status > quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - > how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status > quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism. We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial. [MG>] yes, so... > > [MG>] huh? MSism by any of the definitions currently on the table > (apart from the bizarre flourish of calling it “Participatory > Democracy”--I can call my cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn’t > make him any less of a cat or any more of dog) doesn’t “represent” > anyone other than those who show up or are allowed to show up and > through them the interests that they represent. BTW, I’m all in favour > of Deliberative (and Participatory for that matter) Democracy, the > problem is that neither of these bears any relationship at all either to the current practices or “theories” of MSism. untrue. If you had any experience with the "classical" as you call it, you would know this. [MG>] as I said I claim no expertise in "classical" MSism and choose never to publicly comment on it as a result > [MG>] huh? Are you saying that we create democracy by annulling it… we > really are in Orwell land. And why this pre-occupation with the nation > state in this context. Democracy began outside of nation states, > certainly developed within the context of nation states but is neither > by definition nor by necessary practice confined within the framework of nation states. > BTW I completely agree that there is no longer a particularly good fit > between democratic accountability and traditional nation state > structures and as I mentioned, in what I think was my first > contribution to this thread, I am extremely interested in > collaborating with others in exploring alternative strategies for > democratic practice which better fit with the opportunities and risks of the globalized Internet era. > > We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views > here that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth > there is on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their > own list where they can advance their models of state-based ordering, > while the rest of can work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment. > > [MG>] you can continue with your deliberate misstatements all you > like, they just cast a negative shadow on whatever else you are > commenting on… more slanging [MG>] sigh... M rgds, McTim From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 19:47:51 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 16:47:51 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <149495c8300.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> <149495c8300.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <089801cff0ae$177fa210$467ee630$@gmail.com> Or they may not…. The difference is that the politician or bureaucrat is subject to some or other formal structure of accountability (these may or may not work all that well but they are there and there are often and increasingly in many instances, legal ways of enforcing them); for the email provider (or NGO) the only accountability is to the market and for the NGO there isn’t even that which of course is a major major problem. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 3:11 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Which is much the same as a politician or bureaucrat representing an entire country. A NGO working with a group of people or an email provider with millions of users may well have their users or stakeholder group's concerns and feedback in mind rather than mere political ideologies or business interests when they contribute. On 25 October 2014 6:22:23 pm "michael gurstein" wrote: Well first of all by definition “those who contribute” are “self-selected”… they chose to contribute and were not selected by others such as organizations, community groups, nation states or whoever to contribute on their behalf… Demographically etc. they practically are an “elite” in that they are part of that extremely small sub-set of possible contributors who have the skills, knowledge, resources (including time/money) to contribute where others who might have a concern or might be impacted do not have sufficient skills, knowledge, resources etc. … M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:25 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Sivasubramanian M'; 'David Allen'; michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations How does 'those who contribute' equate to a self selected elite? On 24 October 2014 5:59:09 pm "michael gurstein" wrote: The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion). This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on. Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding. The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM To: David Allen Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Dear David Allen, It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model for ​different purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model. There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve. Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen wrote: Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices. Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ... But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ... Hmmm ... In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box. And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it? And arrange to get everyone there? So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak? Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'? So ceding power to the powerful? David On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders ​​​are not representative enough. The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. Sivasubramanian M On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership” ​ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 19:57:59 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 16:57:59 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Gurstein's critiques... Message-ID: <08b201cff0af$818c43b0$84a4cb10$@gmail.com> Hi Becky, Almost all of your questions can be answered through a reading of my blog where I've been discussing these issues in numerous posts and for several years off and on http://gurstein.wordpress.com I'll be delighted to answer specific additional questions as might be useful "for research purposes" of course. But I would prefer that it be done in the normal research way with appropriate disclaimers, presentation of sampling protocols, confidentiality agreements, survey/interview schedules, ethical conduct compliance forms, you know, that sort of thing. And most importantly if you are looking at funding sources, something which I would be more than pleased to provide under the above conditions assuming of course our esteemed CS colleagues are prepared to do the same. (I'll give you a hint, I don't get any funding from anyone for IG related stuff. No one offers and I don't beg. the last time by my recollection was a plane ticket to Baku via BB (thanks Jeremy and Google. where I shared grotty digs with colleagues via AirBnB and paid my own local expenses as I recall. As to why or on whose behalf I'm spending these delightful moments giving repetitive PoliSci 101 lectures to folks who really ought to know better-well I really do see it as a labour of love. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Becky Lentz Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 3:08 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Gurstein's critiques... [MG>] To Michael specifically, related to your 'inline' contributions below, for research purposes, where might I find your own definitions, articulations of principles in clear and unambiguous terms? Also, what deliberative processes contributed to their construction? Finally, in your IG work, to whom/what constituency, place, institution, community, client, employer etc. are you yourself primarily accountable? Thank you, 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 Fax 514.398.8557 http://www.mcgill.ca/ahcs From: michael gurstein Reply-To: michael gurstein Date: Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 11:52 AM To: Untitled , Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Inline. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:32 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 24/10/2014 12:48 pm, Ian Peter wrote: I think multistakeholderism was/is an attempt to overcome these problems. However, its track record to date is not brilliant when it comes to making progress on important matters, nor is its inclusiveness brilliant. I agree, but the sweeping criticisms of the multi-stakeholder model that we hear from JNC members are directed at immature implementations of that model of which - here's the point - proponents of multi-stakeholderism have themselves been highly critical! [MG>] so what else is the JNC to comment upon. there is no definition, no articulation of principles, no useful formulation that one can respond to and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy-cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one-international public health, food and nutrition, international resource management, environmental regulation and so on are others. To accomplish this the proponents from the USG, from the WEF, from Google etc. provide a sop to Civil Society and gain their compliance and along with it a degree of legitimation by giving them the illusion of effective participation (the outcome of NetMundial anyone. An extremely risky tradeoff by anyone's measure and one that is particularly disgusting because it is being agreed to by CS folks (for the most part thankfully still confined in the IG space) without the agreement or even knowledge of either their constituencies such as they are (APC are you listening) or the broader global civil society which they are meant to provide voice for. They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Take a look, for example, at the latest Best Bits statement to the IGF, which is now open for endorsement (please do so if you agree) which reiterates criticisms of the IGF's implementation of the multi-stakeholder model that we have been repeating endlessly for almost a decade: bestbits.net/igf-2014-taking-stock/ [MG>] I/we/the JNC etc. are not commenting on the various "immature implementations" of MSism but rather on MSism as a governance model meant to supplant, supersede, replace democracy as the aspirational model for governance in modern society. The fact that these criticisms haven't been taken into account can't be attributed to civil society, and doesn't amount to grounds for abandoning the ideals behind multi-stakeholder governance just because they haven't yet been achieved. Their achievement will be the work of decades, not years. [MG>] yes the replacement of a model of governance that has taken millennia to build and cost the lives of thousands of brave folks and may yet cost the lives of even more (see for example the streets of Hong Kong. BTW, the young protestors in Hong Kong aren't protesting for multi-stakeholderism where the dominant corporate barons of contemporary China can and will sit at the table with the dominant (civil society?) party structures and dominant governmental structures to determine the fate of the Hong Kong people, that is what they have already! They are putting their lives, bodies and futures on the line for DEMOCRACY, the rule of the people by the people. Finally, too much of this thread misconceives that multi-stakeholderism is not democratic if it doesn't represent all the people, and that if participants in multi-stakeholder processes are anything less then everybody, they are "elites". This reflects a very shallow conception of democracy, which for example excludes deliberative democratic practices where in which we attempt to include all affected perspectives, rather than all individuals. [MG>] huh? MSism by any of the definitions currently on the table (apart from the bizarre flourish of calling it "Participatory Democracy"--I can call my cat a dog from now to eternity that doesn't make him any less of a cat or any more of dog) doesn't "represent" anyone other than those who show up or are allowed to show up and through them the interests that they represent. BTW, I'm all in favour of Deliberative (and Participatory for that matter) Democracy, the problem is that neither of these bears any relationship at all either to the current practices or "theories" of MSism. As noted above, this can and must be done better than it has been to date. But that is no basis for criticism of the political programme that underlies the promotion of multi-stakeholder governance, which is really nothing more than to realise democratic principles on an international level where nation states are no longer an adequate fit. [MG>] huh? Are you saying that we create democracy by annulling it. we really are in Orwell land. And why this pre-occupation with the nation state in this context. Democracy began outside of nation states, certainly developed within the context of nation states but is neither by definition nor by necessary practice confined within the framework of nation states. BTW I completely agree that there is no longer a particularly good fit between democratic accountability and traditional nation state structures and as I mentioned, in what I think was my first contribution to this thread, I am extremely interested in collaborating with others in exploring alternative strategies for democratic practice which better fit with the opportunities and risks of the globalized Internet era. We are very obviously at the position where there are ingrained views here that are not going to budge regardless of how much back and forth there is on this list, and that's why I'm glad that JNC now has their own list where they can advance their models of state-based ordering, while the rest of can work on improving multi-stakeholderism on other lists without harassment. [MG>] you can continue with your deliberate misstatements all you like, they just cast a negative shadow on whatever else you are commenting on. M -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Oct 25 23:11:22 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 23:11:22 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: ITU unlocked - now what? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Josh Levy, Access" Date: Oct 25, 2014 11:08 AM Subject: ITU unlocked - now what? To: "Carolina Rossini" Cc: *Now that the ITU has responded to public pressure and opened up, let's keep an eye on what's happening at Plenipot14. Check out the Access policy brief to find out more.* Carolina, Thanks to massive public pressure, the ITU is opening up. Earlier this week, thousands of you joined a coalition of civil society groups — organized with partners through the Best Bits Working Group — to urge the International Telecommunication Union to open up its "Plenipot" meeting to the public. *This is great news.* This means that the conversation about the future of the internet won’t take place entirely behind closed doors — and that the public will be able to keep the ITU in check as it seeks to make decisions affecting the open internet, privacy, and cybersecurity. Specifically, the ITU agreed to: - Livestream all plenary sessions and the substantive committee sessions, - Create an online space for members of the public to submit their views, - Hold regular briefings with civil society participants, and - Make input and output documents available to the general public. *Now that the public has succeeded in getting the ITU to open up at least some of its process, it's time to focus on the substance of the discussions. Here's how you can follow along: * - Access has produced a policy brief outlining what to watch for at the conference. Our partners at the Best Bits Working Group have also outlined a set of recommendations . - You can also follow the webcast of the proceedings here . - Follow the conversation on Twitter using the hashtags #Plenipot14 and #OpenITU . Issues to watch out for include conversations about content control in the name of cybersecurity, the creation of national borders online, and closing the digital divide — the main goal of ITU’s internet-related work for at least a decade. *This conference is just getting started and public pressure is already making a difference.* If we raise our voice we can stop the bad outcomes and support the good ones. So stay with us if you care about the future of the internet — and the public’s role in deciding it. The decisionmakers in Busan are our representatives, and they're accountable to all of us. Thanks, Josh Levy Access ------------------------------ *Access defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the world. By combining tech-driven policy, user engagement, and direct technical support, we fight for open and secure communications for all. To help protect the internet around the world, you can donate to Access . To reply, please email info at accessnow.org . **To unsubscribe, go to: **https://www.accessnow.org/unsubscribe * * Follow Access on: Facebook | Google+ | Tumblr | Twitter | YouTube * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Sat Oct 25 23:58:11 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 20:58:11 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <089801cff0ae$177fa210$467ee630$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <022301cfef92$af3e40b0$0dbac210$@gmail.com> <026201cfef97$5bc2d8b0$13488a10$@gmail.com> <02ba01cfef9f$6dc04770$4940d650$@gmail.com> <544A7FC0.1080501@eff.org> <03ed01cfefb4$d72435e0$856ca1a0$@gmail.com> <544A96BD.40204@eff.org> <040901cfefb7$15973b40$40c5b1c0$@gmail.com> <04dc01cfefd3$9bbff420$d33fdc60$@gmail.com> <1494443b7a8.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <068a01cff052$7706c2b0$65144810$@gmail.com> <149495c8300.2824.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <089801cff0ae$177fa210$467ee630$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2ABF0F4D-24B7-44A0-8865-8E38C1712D3B@eff.org> On Oct 25, 2014, at 4:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > The difference is that the politician or bureaucrat is subject to some or other formal structure of accountability (these may or may not work all that well but they are there and there are often and increasingly in many instances, legal ways of enforcing them); for the email provider (or NGO) the only accountability is to the market and for the NGO there isn’t even that which of course is a major major problem. There are many ways in which NGOs make themselves accountable accountable (by internal elections, membership meetings, publication of records) and for INGOs there is an accountability forum that holds them to a high standard. Additionally in the Internet governance space, we are under the microscope of certain of our peers who have appointed themselves with that task, and who seem to go about it with some delight, even to the detriment of our more substantive agenda. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Oct 26 03:45:24 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:45:24 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: ITU - Internet related Resolutions References: <9C7118B8-8A5E-440F-98CD-1FDB113D8B17@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52B13584-BE6C-45AB-B28D-D3C755F99E15@glocom.ac.jp> Begin forwarded message: > From: Adam > Date: October 26, 2014 4:43:51 PM GMT+09:00 > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC" , 1net Discussion List > Subject: ITU - Internet related Resolutions > > A document combining various Internet related resolutions being considered at the ITU Plenipotentiary is available on WCITLeaks.org. These working docs not available through the ITU's website, seem to require ties account. > > Internet related > > Also, security related resolutions seem on limited distribution, but available on WCITleaks. > > > and > > > Adam From dave at difference.com.au Sun Oct 26 04:54:57 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:54:57 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] A simple question for JNC members Message-ID: <6D4E198A-A805-427C-B112-83C499E2B7EF@difference.com.au> ... what form of international governance do you think should be used for Internet governance issues, or any other issues for that matter? Democracy seems to be the guiding principle here, and it seems clear you only consider direct or representative democratic principles valid, rather than the 'decisions are made by those who show up' nature of most MS fora. If that is the issue, then exiting multi-lateral fora, such as the ITU, which obviously allow equal voting from nations with extremely undemocratic political systems, such as China, KSA, etc. would seem to be very problematic. And that is before you consider issues such as whether even the way in which representatives are appointed even by democratic nations is truly democratic - often technical representatives may be employees of state or private enterprises, for example. And besides, these fora rely on consensus anyway, which seems to be undemocratic in JNC thinking unless we are effectively getting consensus of the entire populace. And multi-lateral institutions have a far worse record for excluding the general populace, excluding protest and activism, etc than multi-stakeholder ones do (indeed, the de facto position is that many MS institutions admit literally anyone, while most multi-lateral institutions by default exclude almost everyone, admitting only those authorised by their state). Multi-lateral negotiations between even between only democratic nations seem problematic too, as examples such as the TTPA, TTIP, etc are closed, secretive, and disliked and considered undemocratic by apparently everybody, including JNC members. It could, of course, be claimed that while those examples are bad, some theoretical better multi-lateral process restricted to democratic nations might be good - but unless some clear articulation of what this better process would, and how it could be realistically achieved, is made, this is just the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - every example of negotiations between democratic nations that is closed, secretive, exclusionary, and undemocratic is somehow just an aberration that doesn't undermine the theory. So, is the JNC position only a critique of existing government forms, or is there an form of transnational governance that would actually satisfy the principles they espouse? Is this form of transnational governance an existing one, or is it something that exists only in theoretical terms? What is it? Could you describe examples of transnational governance fora that do, or could, satisfy, or come close to satisfying, JNC principles? [and no, Michael, "I wrote about that on my blog somewhere" is not really a good answer to this question (or any other question)] I ask from genuine interest. I certainly feel that current MS organisations are far from perfect, and could certainly do with improvement. But the JNC criticisms of MSism seem largely as if they would make things worse (e.g. the main criticism of MSism seems to be that commercial orgenisations participate, but this criticism directly applied to MS processes would seem to be call to make such processes exclusionary rather than open, which seems a terrible idea). In general, some JNC criticisms of MSIsm point out some areas in which I feel MSism could certainly be improved, such as how to genuinely broaden participation, but in as far as some of the principles seem contradictory, I'm sceptical as to whether any actual form of governance could satisfy them better than an improved version of MSism. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From dave at difference.com.au Sun Oct 26 05:34:35 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:34:35 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <088c01cff0a9$e5cd4cd0$b167e670$@gmail.com> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <078201cff06b$bb211c70$31635550$@gmail.com> <088c01cff0a9$e5cd4cd0$b167e670$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <190AC373-DA42-4884-A2CC-5A85A0E0DD63@difference.com.au> On 26 Oct 2014, at 7:17 am, michael gurstein wrote: >> and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and >> elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. > > NO, the opposite is true. The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)" > [MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has to do with my comments... Well, you could always ask your JNC colleague Richard Hill about why he was so keen on the ITU taking on more control over Internet governance, I'm sure he will be happy to explain. If you, or the JNC generally, believe that government led, multi-lateral, fora such as the ITU, are also inappropriate for transnational Internet government, I'm sure there are many who would appreciate clarifying your position. >> Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of >> intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to >> buy—cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by >> others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) >> corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their >> increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global >> governance of which the Internet is only one— > > No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance. > [MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and take a look at > http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steercom%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf I find myself truly baffled as to what you find so sinister about USG support of open government initiatives. Is this just circular reasoning, whereby it is deemed to be bad because the USG is doing it, which can then be taken as an example of the USGs sinister agenda? I know the open government folks in Australia, and they are terrific, the open government movement is something I would have thought CS was unreservedly in favour of, but apparently not.... > http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf > http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014 > etc.etc. Yes, corporate investment in nations with weak governance raises a host of policy questions, and the USG has a position on this. Are there specific relevant points in regards to Internet governance, or transnational governance in general, that you are trying to make here? >> They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these >> implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to >> mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status >> quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - >> how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status >> quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? > > > Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism. We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial. CS is in favour of MSism, but that doesn't mean the status quo. Look at, for example, the moves through NetMundial and within ICANN to bring human rights explicitly into the policy processes of technical organisations, largely led by CS (and resisted by the technical community). Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From deborah at apc.org Wed Oct 8 17:49:24 2014 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:49:24 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) In-Reply-To: References: <5434A83E.9070100@apc.org> Message-ID: <5435B164.9010608@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Dear all, The letter is now posted on the Best Bits platform for endorsements. http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ I understand that the the letter is meant to go to the ITU on Thursday, but if someone could give a more specific cutoff time for endorsements, that would be helpful. Kind regards, Deborah On 10/8/14 1:44 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Great suggestion Deborah - the ITU fluid working group supports > this idea. Best Anne > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Deborah Brown > wrote: > > Thanks Anne for this great summary and coordinating this. > > In addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary General, > could we also address it to (or copy) the current deputy Secretary > General who is the uncontested candidate to be the next SG? It > could be strategic to start engaging him early on and relevant to > include him in his current post in any case. > > Kind regards, Deborah > > On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> Dear friends,____ > >> __ __ > >> After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a >> fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at >> the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a >> group of around 25 members of civil society have been >> coordinating various activities:____ > >> • Pre-conference knowledge sharing;____ > >> • Coordination of specific advocacy efforts;____ > >> • Organising on the ground civil society activities in >> Busan.____ > >> __ __ > >> As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group has >> developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP >> Conference processes. Please find the letter here: >> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . > > >> Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, and >> seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process >> of consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that >> the text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather >> than the standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After >> this, a final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as >> possible, will be available for 24 hours for endorsements. > > >> During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage >> members to focus on red lines that would prevent them from >> endorsing the letter rather than detailed line by line edits. > > >> This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and >> encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate >> broader stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This >> does not preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at >> Member States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the >> Conference outcomes. > >> __ __ > >> This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary >> General/Secretariat later this week, and then to various ITU >> delegations as an FYI. > > >> Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the >> drafting. > >> __ __ > >> In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the >> efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. __ > >> __ __ > >> Very 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 > > > > > -- 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUNbFkAAoJEPeieloNaneNtycP/3xcwfJgaSxd2JrqM2u4682D P67kwzvvLd311nbJjI0ATzVVe63SiJ7bGrYubLTJ5v2hzRWvEGyeyg7ZuMsYtLp9 4A06opZZqXbpq/ApTkOBCdtmO2cIcsrTWXudxGj4en7B/Q3njpcZVpa+RulMi0Dm sCXfzNzb5AOuqAoVV8wK3rn/TATMmQYIaISL844Yj0OQ3bXrAQ9LZx8m9Gt83gAJ tEQSr7rJ3J1ceg9BzABQjYuZdfvbl7zUJFSKpIB7HRVKUlxmLOk/rHZP1cyb1bKH C1kSs4Y8+EUgLc6RPTeHgaFZkv8iy6y2dOrqS4oa41jw8NSJdktVVhm6CFvbTKAu TjzbQCPQKaNPLoVmfNiWu7JKOPFVANm07aODlTZPY6VXQ2fqJGROFqv8wwmFgETl hoKGAy/vw9eTdzyEcrJUHqSYl+yY7jj2otYkzmrQuERDdzTkX2nmQkMAim2CgdfZ VVjRLn6qFAXb1eHTKUIQcYqsYQFq5j+twL+pEK/N7vuh8Is01SLGrfuiZS7XgeOL QOhC27F+pCq+zCT0+EHRpzFioWLwBx3oN2wUHIpiSvh0/OaGUOysc5O/1HNFAr6/ 11n8P8AjimtwMYezwBjxo9lcQw5FvuURGV5dWeEh/8FNCIOhc+ZYxqn6dK4LB/tz sKj4qdrfhBJ0hR/3Q/l8 =Y44N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nb at bollow.ch Sun Oct 26 08:21:07 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:21:07 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] A simple question for JNC members In-Reply-To: <6D4E198A-A805-427C-B112-83C499E2B7EF@difference.com.au> References: <6D4E198A-A805-427C-B112-83C499E2B7EF@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <20141026132107.6291b4be@quill> David, many thanks for this question, which I think is a good one for us to create an official response to. I request a bit of patience, as such a drafting process and the consensus process are going to take a couple of days at least. Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:54:57 +0800 David Cake wrote: > ... what form of international governance do you think should > be used for Internet governance issues, or any other issues for that > matter? Democracy seems to be the guiding principle here, and it > seems clear you only consider direct or representative democratic > principles valid, rather than the 'decisions are made by those who > show up' nature of most MS fora. > > If that is the issue, then exiting multi-lateral fora, such as the > ITU, which obviously allow equal voting from nations with extremely > undemocratic political systems, such as China, KSA, etc. would seem > to be very problematic. And that is before you consider issues such > as whether even the way in which representatives are appointed even > by democratic nations is truly democratic - often technical > representatives may be employees of state or private enterprises, for > example. And besides, these fora rely on consensus anyway, which > seems to be undemocratic in JNC thinking unless we are effectively > getting consensus of the entire populace. And multi-lateral > institutions have a far worse record for excluding the general > populace, excluding protest and activism, etc than multi-stakeholder > ones do (indeed, the de facto position is that many MS institutions > admit literally anyone, while most multi-lateral institutions by > default exclude almost everyone, admitting only those authorised by > their state). > > Multi-lateral negotiations between even between only democratic > nations seem problematic too, as examples such as the TTPA, TTIP, etc > are closed, secretive, and disliked and considered undemocratic by > apparently everybody, including JNC members. It could, of course, be > claimed that while those examples are bad, some theoretical better > multi-lateral process restricted to democratic nations might be good > - but unless some clear articulation of what this better process > would, and how it could be realistically achieved, is made, this is > just the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - every example of negotiations > between democratic nations that is closed, secretive, exclusionary, > and undemocratic is somehow just an aberration that doesn't undermine > the theory. > > So, is the JNC position only a critique of existing government forms, > or is there an form of transnational governance that would actually > satisfy the principles they espouse? Is this form of transnational > governance an existing one, or is it something that exists only in > theoretical terms? What is it? Could you describe examples of > transnational governance fora that do, or could, satisfy, or come > close to satisfying, JNC principles? > > [and no, Michael, "I wrote about that on my blog somewhere" is not > really a good answer to this question (or any other question)] > > I ask from genuine interest. I certainly feel that current MS > organisations are far from perfect, and could certainly do with > improvement. But the JNC criticisms of MSism seem largely as if they > would make things worse (e.g. the main criticism of MSism seems to be > that commercial orgenisations participate, but this criticism > directly applied to MS processes would seem to be call to make such > processes exclusionary rather than open, which seems a terrible > idea). In general, some JNC criticisms of MSIsm point out some areas > in which I feel MSism could certainly be improved, such as how to > genuinely broaden participation, but in as far as some of the > principles seem contradictory, I'm sceptical as to whether any actual > form of governance could satisfy them better than an improved version > of MSism. > > Regards > > David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Sun Oct 26 12:20:51 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 09:20:51 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Final IGF contribution for endorsement In-Reply-To: References: <544A8969.1070408@eff.org> Message-ID: <7DB346D6-14BA-44A1-BF46-376AA3D7A2F5@eff.org> On Oct 25, 2014, at 3:41 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Personally, I’d have preferred a shorter and more narrowly focused letter that lays out a model, rather than an expository grazing over multiple issues and historical background. For ex, what I tried to suggest in the Istanbul main session that was nominally supposed to discuss the IGF’s role (I was in a different room and the RM garbled the reading of my typed text) was that we could I think it would be very valuable if you forward these comments on your own behalf, since you're no longer on the MAG - if we'd had more time, it could also have been offered as a draft IGC statement. >> there is a Secretariat, with limited resources and a narrow self-assessed mandate to effect structural changes to the IGF >> > I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. Where/when was Chengetai and his merry band of volunteers and part-time workers/consultants mandated to effect structural change on behalf of the global community? It's not meant to suggest that they ever were mandated to make major changes, or ever did so, but there have been minor "operational" changes that they made within the scope of organising the meeting and operating the website, and often without consulting the global community about them first - this is what "narrow" is intended to convey. I can dig up examples when I get a chance... >> , and there is a MAG which, overall, considers itself a programme committee only and is similarly reluctant to depart from established structures and formats. >> > I think it’s somewhat difficult to ascribe collective intentionality to the MAG because there’s been very little self-reflective discussion of its role, the membership evolves, and a good chunk of the group is fairly disengaged. But there certainly have been members who’d not be accurately portrayed as above. Sure, well we know that you were one of those! But hence "overall". >> The IGF would benefit from the appointment of a new, charismatic and visionary Executive Coordinator, with multi-stakeholder support, to personally evangelise for and drive the necessary changes. >> > Apparently DESA is again considering an EC. Good! >> Workshops are partly scored based on whether panelists are confirmed to attend, but in many cases panelists’ attendance is contingent on the workshop being approved >> > > Unfortunately (for the statement), this is not true. At least in the three years I did it, this was never a criteria for scoring. I think that we can address this by just adding a few words at the start "There is a perception that...", because that is true, on the basis of several complaints about this that I've heard personally. This paragraph was based in particular on what Nnenna said during the Best Bits meeting. The perception itself, even if wrong, should be addressed by clarifying the workshop submission form. > I don’t know if you’d be willing to delete this paragraph before seeking further endorsements, but it makes it difficult to sign as is. With those few words added at the start, it is OK? In any case, I would really encourage you again to submit your own statement, cutting and pasting from your email. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 14:31:23 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:31:23 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <190AC373-DA42-4884-A2CC-5A85A0E0DD63@difference.com.au> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <095C7CB56C24423886F235B03BF81A9D@Toshiba> <544AC565.6020603@eff.org> <078201cff06b$bb211c70$31635550$@gmail.com> <088c01cff0a9$e5cd4cd0$b167e670$@gmail.com> <190AC373-DA42-4884-A2CC-5A85A0E0DD63@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <0aa501cff14b$0c2a1740$247e45c0$@gmail.com> David, From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:35 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 26 Oct 2014, at 7:17 am, michael gurstein wrote: and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. NO, the opposite is true. The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)" [MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has to do with my comments... Well, you could always ask your JNC colleague Richard Hill about why he was so keen on the ITU taking on more control over Internet governance, I'm sure he will be happy to explain. If you, or the JNC generally, believe that government led, multi-lateral, fora such as the ITU, are also inappropriate for transnational Internet government, I'm sure there are many who would appreciate clarifying your position. [MG>] I have no specialized knowledge or expertise in the details of transnational governance. My discussion was at the level of principles and governance models the detailed application of which I would leave to those (such as Richard Hill) with such specialized knowledge. My own position would be that such governance should take place in the form and in the context most likely to reflect the broader democratic values. I would not either rule in or rule out any specific context prima facie simply because it was or was not a UN agency for example (as seems to be the case for MSists/anti-Democracy proponents). In any case my overall principle would be how the venue and process would most clearly reflect democratic values and processes and for many cases how these activities might further promote and support democratic processes and values. I presume that MSists/anti-Democracy proponents would adopt a similar position concerning MSism i.e. how the particular venue (for example the proposed WEF as a venue) would promote MSism i.e. governance by self-selected elites and further undermining of traditional approaches to Democratic values and governance processes. (BTW, I'm still waiting for the argument from our distinguished CS colleagues towards the HK demonstrators on how MSism will be a "evolutionary enhancement" of the democracy that they have so bravely been advocating. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy-cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one- No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance. [MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and take a look at http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steer com%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf I find myself truly baffled as to what you find so sinister about USG support of open government initiatives. Is this just circular reasoning, whereby it is deemed to be bad because the USG is doing it, which can then be taken as an example of the USGs sinister agenda? I know the open government folks in Australia, and they are terrific, the open government movement is something I would have thought CS was unreservedly in favour of, but apparently not.... [MG>] I was in this casual listing simply responding to McTim's quite ill-informed comment that MSism is not being applied in any other area of "governance" however I think my inclusion here of Open Government initiatives in this listing was over-hasty. In fact OG/OGD/OGP activities differ quite significantly from IG MSism in that for OG the MS activities are clearly confined to advisory and accountability processes and not decision making.. A further difference is that, at least at the moment there is no significant corporate involvement in the OGP MS processes (a source of concern it should be said to certain of the governmental proponents of OGP). (I have blogged quite extensively on OG activities .) http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014 etc.etc. Yes, corporate investment in nations with weak governance raises a host of policy questions, and the USG has a position on this. Are there specific relevant points in regards to Internet governance, or transnational governance in general, that you are trying to make here? [MG>] no, this is simply a listing pointing to other areas where attempts are being made to implant MSism as a mechanism for global governance. There was a very extensive documentation recently on an attempt including through very heavy corporate involvement, NGO greenwashing, policy log-rolling in favour of corporate interests from various specific national governments, and so on to derail (or rather reconstruct in a MS format) a series of multi-lateral agreements and I believe treaty processes for controlling of deforestation. The result was, rather than a treaty there was a toothless MS governance framework which postponed effective action by at least a decade, made a few NGO/consultants and their corporate clients rich and effectively screwed the rest of us by preventing intervention into a highly destructive (to the common good) lucrative (to the multinational logging companies) status quo of forest cover destruction--(sound familiar at all). (I can't put my finger on the references at the moment but perhaps someone reading this will pass along the relevant link.) They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism. We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial. CS is in favour of MSism, but that doesn't mean the status quo. Look at, for example, the moves through NetMundial and within ICANN to bring human rights explicitly into the policy processes of technical organisations, largely led by CS (and resisted by the technical community). [MG>] some of CS is in favour of MSism. Full-throated almost messianic support for MSism within CS is (thankfully) only confined to the IG space at the moment. The technical community may be resisting human rights in the IG space because of their built in blinders and general policy narrow-mindedess but the corporate folks have no problem with trading off support for HR as in "freedom of expression" and "freedom of assembly" for CS support since it costs them nothing and gains them a huge degree of credibility including with their staff and major market demographics. (It also not coincidentally fits quite well with their "open networks" business models and global marketing strategies.) Just see what happens with that support when, as is conventionally promoted by CS, the inclusion of "social justice" as a Human Right is promoted. I'm still waiting for any of the conventional CS groups in the IG space to come out with a strong position arguing for human rights and social justice i.e. human rights not just for the white Developed Country middle class folks but also as it benefits everyone else in the world. M Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 15:29:15 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:29:15 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] MSism or Democracy In-Reply-To: <09d401cff114$ecf0fcd0$c6d2f670$@gmail.com> References: <09d401cff114$ecf0fcd0$c6d2f670$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0ad401cff153$214fef20$63efcd60$@gmail.com> For those who have been following the current discussion on MSism but may be a wee bit lost- I'm expecting that there is some feeling that those nice folks that we all meet and drink with at various meetings in interesting parts of the world could not possibly be supporting a position which rejects democracy as the fundamental and aspirational model for global (Internet and other) governance. But I've been waiting for the documentation, the argumentation, the set of references and white papers which outline what is actually meant by the Multi-stakeholder model of governance (apart from it not being about any form of democracy that any reasonable observer might agree with) that these folks have been so loudly and widely promoting as the new form of governance that will resolve the problems of the Internet and the weaknesses in current governance forms and processes. There is a terminology certainly, and there are an almost infinite number of exhortations for MS this and MS that but when it comes to details such as I and others have been requesting for several years and which I directly have been requesting over the last few days from those resident in these Internet Governance discussion spaces, and we know that all the leading lights of CS at least are resident in one or another of these spaces, the only response has been the trivial and trivializing comment from Gene Kimmelman that he (and presumably his CS colleagues) haven't had time (over the last 3 or 4 years) to provide this information. Meanwhile they have been insisting at every possible juncture on a model of governance-MSist which would replace democracy as the fundamental organizing and aspirational principle for global (Internet) governance. Hmmm.. Either they don't want to be explicit because they know what the reaction of the world would be or they really don't know. So let me make a stab at it. Based on my fairly close reading of these discussions and following up on whatever few references have been pointed to, for me the documents below provide the best insight into what the MSists are proposing for the broad framework of global (Internet) governance for the future. The first document is from the World Economic Forum which, with funding from the Government of Qatar and others launched a research program "about ways in which international institutions and arrangements should be adapted to contemporary challenges". The second is from a private (and largely corporate funded) think tank in the US which specializes in policy discussions. The third is from a private consulting firm specializing in corporate strategy but evidently supported in this effort by ISOC and a variety of corporate and other sponsors. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRI_EverybodysBusiness_Report_2010.pdf (particularly the Systemic Overview starting pp. 19 http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Si ngle_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf (worth taking a wander through the whole thing given the "stellar" nature of the contributors http://gsnetworks.org/research_posts/the-remarkable-internet-governance-netw ork-part-i/ http://gsnetworks.org/research_posts/the-remarkable-internet-governance-netw ork-part-ii/ IMHO it is worth spending a half day working one's way through these documents as they provide the road map which the MSists appear to be following. Not much more detail on what MSism might actually mean in practice but lots of discussion on how it could be implemented to respond to a variety of policy "challenges" since "democratic" solutions are so, well, 20th century although the people who gave up their lives for Democracy during the Arab Spring, in the Ukraine, in Eastern Europe, and elsewhere might possibly disagree. If I've gotten the MSist canon/program wrong I would be delighted to be corrected and given direction to more appropriate documents. M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:35 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 26 Oct 2014, at 7:17 am, michael gurstein wrote: and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. NO, the opposite is true. The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)" [MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has to do with my comments... Well, you could always ask your JNC colleague Richard Hill about why he was so keen on the ITU taking on more control over Internet governance, I'm sure he will be happy to explain. If you, or the JNC generally, believe that government led, multi-lateral, fora such as the ITU, are also inappropriate for transnational Internet government, I'm sure there are many who would appreciate clarifying your position. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy-cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one- No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance. [MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and take a look at http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steer com%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf I find myself truly baffled as to what you find so sinister about USG support of open government initiatives. Is this just circular reasoning, whereby it is deemed to be bad because the USG is doing it, which can then be taken as an example of the USGs sinister agenda? I know the open government folks in Australia, and they are terrific, the open government movement is something I would have thought CS was unreservedly in favour of, but apparently not.... http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014 etc.etc. Yes, corporate investment in nations with weak governance raises a host of policy questions, and the USG has a position on this. Are there specific relevant points in regards to Internet governance, or transnational governance in general, that you are trying to make here? They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism. We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial. CS is in favour of MSism, but that doesn't mean the status quo. Look at, for example, the moves through NetMundial and within ICANN to bring human rights explicitly into the policy processes of technical organisations, largely led by CS (and resisted by the technical community). Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 15:44:37 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:44:37 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Multistakeholder or Democracy Message-ID: <0ae301cff155$46ce40b0$d46ac210$@gmail.com> Tks Richard ================= It is useful to look at the kind of views on global Internet governance that have been expressed in WEF reports over the last few years. This is what an analysis[2] of the WEF's Global Redesign Initiative (GRI) has to say about the initiative: "One of GRI's major recommendations is that experiences with "multistakeholder consultations" on global matters should evolve into "multi-stakeholder governance" arrangements. This transformation means that non-state actors would no longer just provide input to decision-makers (e.g. governments or multinational corporations) but would actually be responsible for making global policy decisions... "Their recommendations for multistakeholder governance include the introduction of parallel meetings with the governing bodies of the WHO, UNESCO, and FAO where non-state actors will hold independent sessions as a complement to the official government meetings. GRI also recommends a second new form of multi-stakeholder governance for conflict zones in developing countries. They propose that the non-state actors, particularly the business community, join with the UN system to jointly administer these conflict zones. "There are some sharp differences between "multistakeholder consultations" and "multistakeholder governance", some of which are often blurred by the loose use of the term "multistakeholder" ." Multistakeholderism apparently is a new, post-democratic form of governance which gives big business a major, institutionalised, political role and authority. Multistakeholderism in this form is the preferred neoliberal model of governance, whose application begins at the global level and with Internet governance but is certainly meant to be taken to national levels as well as to all sectors of governance. The plan is dead serious, with clear calls for setting up multistakeholder organisations that will do policy-making and governance. To quote the WEF's Global Agenda Council on the Future of the Internet from GRI's final report[3]: "This means designing multistakeholder structures for the institutions that deal with global problems with an online dimension. Thus the establishment of a multistakeholder institution to address such issues as Internet privacy, copyright, crime and dispute resolution is necessary. The government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter. And as ever more problems come to acquire an online dimension, the multistakeholder institution would become the default in international cooperation." 2[MG>] http://www.umb.edu/gri/appraisal_of_wefs_perspectives_first_objective_enhanc ed legitimacy/multistakeholderism 3 'Everybody's Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World', pp. 317-21. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRI_EverybodysBusiness_Report_2010.pdf From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 18:06:23 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:36:23 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On this topic I have posted this: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141025_an_open_letter_to_the_prime_minister_of_india/ Sivasubramanian M Sivasubramanian M +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:28 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > * [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with > many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… * > > instructs the Secretary General > 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and > intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to > develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries > are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP > addresses accordingly; > 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including > International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for > allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, > numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, > democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated > with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing > with day-to-day technical and operational matters; > 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that > addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, > resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on > technical capabilities to developing countries; > 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the > country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes > place within the country; > 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic > originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; > 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the > network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of > communication; > 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the weaknesses > of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and recommend > secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the requirements of > future networks in view of the envisaged manifold increase in traffic and > end devices in near future in the light of IoT and M2M needs; > 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 19:18:46 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:18:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum andTweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period forITU Plenipot joint recommendations Message-ID: <0be001cff173$31c8ccd0$955a6670$@gmail.com> With permission… M From: projectallende at gmail.com [mailto:projectallende at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Project Allende Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:26 PM To: rhill at hill-a.ch Cc: michael gurstein; JNC Forum Subject: Re: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] FW: [governance] Tweedledum andTweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period forITU Plenipot joint recommendations Be afraid, be very afraid (or at least very wary). I'm sure I don't need to tell seasoned negotiators like yourselves but Multi Stakeholderism is, in my experience, an insidious but effective approach (similar to the new trend in corporate/government fora such as the WEF or the annual Davos meetings) where corporates play a state-like role in many decision-making spheres thereby giving them direct decision-making (veto blocking, or conversation orienting) capabilities in regulatory decisions (typically those which affect their profits). Examples include big data and those same corporate's abilities to use certain technologies (such as profiling/personalisation meta-data) which may be considered by many governments part of their own regulatory or security interest. For people (like myself) who work in the ecology realm: multi-stakeholderism has been all the rage in the United Nations when it comes to Green tech and light touch "corporate responsibility" (anti command and control) "market-based" approaches to prevent effective action on climate change. Corporates as stake-holders (with a kind of one-dollar-one-vote notion of democracy) are often involved directly (or in parallel processes) in the world's climate change negotiations such as the COP UNFCCC processes currently in Peru and soon to play live in Paris. Having a seat at the table allows the corporate stakeholders to help prevent any serious democratic or government regulation from happening by being capable of stopping the regulation in their tracks. From my experience in monitoring the post-2015 UN Processes and even more so the Rio+20 corporate green-tech takeover, this multi-stakeholderism is a sort of deep pocketed capability of affecting any possible profit-negative decisions in the regulatory processes that ultimately affect all of our lives. Tony _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum at justnetcoalition.org http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org -- Tony Phillips Coordinating Editor; Europe on the Brink; Debt, Crisis and Dissent in the European Periphery: Zed Books -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Oct 26 23:12:09 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:12:09 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [spam] [IP] Lawrence Lessig Interviews Edward Snowden References: Message-ID: <5349584D-8B58-4A25-8BB4-FD15CF3DD32A@glocom.ac.jp> Begin forwarded message: > From: "Dave Farber via ip" > Date: October 27, 2014 3:58:04 AM GMT+09:00 > To: "ip" > Subject: [spam] [IP] Lawrence Lessig Interviews Edward Snowden > Reply-To: dave at farber.net > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Dewayne Hendricks" > Date: Oct 26, 2014 12:47 PM > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Lawrence Lessig Interviews Edward Snowden > To: "Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net" > Cc: > > Lawrence Lessig Interviews Edward Snowden > Oct 23 2014 > > > Professor Lawrence Lessig interviewed Edward Snowden at Harvard Law School on Oct. 20. > > Video: 1:03:01 min > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mahimakaul at orfonline.org Mon Oct 27 06:16:46 2014 From: mahimakaul at orfonline.org (Mahima Kaul) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:46:46 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: You might also want to consider this piece: http://www.cfr.org/internet-policy/itu-unbundling-internet-governance/p33656 On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > On this topic I have posted this: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141025_an_open_letter_to_the_prime_minister_of_india/ > > Sivasubramanian M > > Sivasubramanian M > +1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014 > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:28 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> >> [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with many >> of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… >> >> instructs the Secretary General >> 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and >> intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to >> develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries >> are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP addresses >> accordingly; >> 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including >> International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for >> allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, >> numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, >> democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated >> with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing >> with day-to-day technical and operational matters; >> 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that >> addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, >> resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on >> technical capabilities to developing countries; >> 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which >> ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the >> country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes >> place within the country; >> 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which >> ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic >> originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; >> 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the >> network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of >> communication; >> 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the weaknesses >> of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and recommend >> secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the requirements of future >> networks in view of the envisaged manifold increase in traffic and end >> devices in near future in the light of IoT and M2M needs; >> 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 -- Mahima Kaul Fellow Head, Cyber and Media Initiative Observer Research Foundation 20 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi 110002 India Landline: 91143520020 ext 2129 Cell: +919910170854 From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 08:46:43 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:46:43 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Final IGF contribution for endorsement In-Reply-To: <7DB346D6-14BA-44A1-BF46-376AA3D7A2F5@eff.org> References: <544A8969.1070408@eff.org> <7DB346D6-14BA-44A1-BF46-376AA3D7A2F5@eff.org> Message-ID: <4264E84F-AEB8-4D6A-B092-F531325A7FCD@gmail.com> Hi Jeremy Probably this is not the best moment for this conversation since its seems there are preferred topics, so just briefly: > On Oct 26, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2014, at 3:41 AM, William Drake > wrote: >> >> Personally, I’d have preferred a shorter and more narrowly focused letter that lays out a model, rather than an expository grazing over multiple issues and historical background. For ex, what I tried to suggest in the Istanbul main session that was nominally supposed to discuss the IGF’s role (I was in a different room and the RM garbled the reading of my typed text) was that we could > > I think it would be very valuable if you forward these comments on your own behalf, since you're no longer on the MAG - if we'd had more time, it could also have been offered as a draft IGC statement. I’m on the MAG until December, have said it before and can do so again, but think a collective statement still would be useful. Perhaps post-Plenipot and in the run-up to the 1-3 December open consultations and MAG meeting/turnover we could revisit and see if there’s sufficient interest. >>> there is a Secretariat, with limited resources and a narrow self-assessed mandate to effect structural changes to the IGF >>> >> I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. Where/when was Chengetai and his merry band of volunteers and part-time workers/consultants mandated to effect structural change on behalf of the global community? > > It's not meant to suggest that they ever were mandated to make major changes, or ever did so, but there have been minor "operational" changes that they made within the scope of organising the meeting and operating the website, and often without consulting the global community about them first - this is what "narrow" is intended to convey. I can dig up examples when I get a chance… No need, I’m familiar with these, operational > structural. > >>> , and there is a MAG which, overall, considers itself a programme committee only and is similarly reluctant to depart from established structures and formats. >>> >> I think it’s somewhat difficult to ascribe collective intentionality to the MAG because there’s been very little self-reflective discussion of its role, the membership evolves, and a good chunk of the group is fairly disengaged. But there certainly have been members who’d not be accurately portrayed as above. > > Sure, well we know that you were one of those! But hence "overall”. Just a small matter of framing => reception. > >>> The IGF would benefit from the appointment of a new, charismatic and visionary Executive Coordinator, with multi-stakeholder support, to personally evangelise for and drive the necessary changes. >>> >> Apparently DESA is again considering an EC. > > Good! > >>> Workshops are partly scored based on whether panelists are confirmed to attend, but in many cases panelists’ attendance is contingent on the workshop being approved >>> >> >> Unfortunately (for the statement), this is not true. At least in the three years I did it, this was never a criteria for scoring. > > > I think that we can address this by just adding a few words at the start "There is a perception that...", because that is true, on the basis of several complaints about this that I've heard personally. This paragraph was based in particular on what Nnenna said during the Best Bits meeting. The perception itself, even if wrong, should be addressed by clarifying the workshop submission form. I don’t know how widespread the misperception is since I’ve not heard it before, but ok maybe if you say this the next MAG will be prompted to tweak the workshop guidelines announcement accordingly. Cheers Bill > > >> I don’t know if you’d be willing to delete this paragraph before seeking further endorsements, but it makes it difficult to sign as is. > > With those few words added at the start, it is OK? In any case, I would really encourage you again to submit your own statement, cutting and pasting from your email. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Wed Oct 8 19:13:18 2014 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:13:18 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) In-Reply-To: <5435B164.9010608@apc.org> References: <5434A83E.9070100@apc.org> <5435B164.9010608@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi all, In response to Deborah's question - we will be sending the letter to the ITU tomorrow midday UTC. The letter will remain open for endorsements after that (until tomorrow evening I think), but please note that your organisation won't be included in the list of signatories unless you add your endorsement by noon UTC. Apologies for the inconvenience - it is important to send the letter out as soon as we can tomorrow to ensure we have enough time for follow up activities with the Secretariat as well as Member States. Best, Lea > On 8 Oct 2014, at 22:49, Deborah Brown wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > Dear all, The letter is now posted on the Best Bits platform for > endorsements. http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ > > I understand that the the letter is meant to go to the ITU on > Thursday, but if someone could give a more specific cutoff time for > endorsements, that would be helpful. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > >> On 10/8/14 1:44 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> Great suggestion Deborah - the ITU fluid working group supports >> this idea. Best Anne >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Deborah Brown > > wrote: >> >> Thanks Anne for this great summary and coordinating this. >> >> In addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary General, >> could we also address it to (or copy) the current deputy Secretary >> General who is the uncontested candidate to be the next SG? It >> could be strategic to start engaging him early on and relevant to >> include him in his current post in any case. >> >> Kind regards, Deborah >> >>> On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>> Dear friends,____ >> >>> __ __ >> >>> After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a >>> fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at >>> the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a >>> group of around 25 members of civil society have been >>> coordinating various activities:____ >> >>> • Pre-conference knowledge sharing;____ >> >>> • Coordination of specific advocacy efforts;____ >> >>> • Organising on the ground civil society activities in >>> Busan.____ >> >>> __ __ >> >>> As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group has >>> developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP >>> Conference processes. Please find the letter here: >>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . >> >> >>> Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, and >>> seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process >>> of consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that >>> the text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather >>> than the standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After >>> this, a final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as >>> possible, will be available for 24 hours for endorsements. >> >> >>> During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage >>> members to focus on red lines that would prevent them from >>> endorsing the letter rather than detailed line by line edits. >> >> >>> This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and >>> encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate >>> broader stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This >>> does not preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at >>> Member States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the >>> Conference outcomes. >> >>> __ __ >> >>> This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary >>> General/Secretariat later this week, and then to various ITU >>> delegations as an FYI. >> >> >>> Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the >>> drafting. >> >>> __ __ >> >>> In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the >>> efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. __ >> >>> __ __ >> >>> Very 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUNbFkAAoJEPeieloNaneNtycP/3xcwfJgaSxd2JrqM2u4682D > P67kwzvvLd311nbJjI0ATzVVe63SiJ7bGrYubLTJ5v2hzRWvEGyeyg7ZuMsYtLp9 > 4A06opZZqXbpq/ApTkOBCdtmO2cIcsrTWXudxGj4en7B/Q3njpcZVpa+RulMi0Dm > sCXfzNzb5AOuqAoVV8wK3rn/TATMmQYIaISL844Yj0OQ3bXrAQ9LZx8m9Gt83gAJ > tEQSr7rJ3J1ceg9BzABQjYuZdfvbl7zUJFSKpIB7HRVKUlxmLOk/rHZP1cyb1bKH > C1kSs4Y8+EUgLc6RPTeHgaFZkv8iy6y2dOrqS4oa41jw8NSJdktVVhm6CFvbTKAu > TjzbQCPQKaNPLoVmfNiWu7JKOPFVANm07aODlTZPY6VXQ2fqJGROFqv8wwmFgETl > hoKGAy/vw9eTdzyEcrJUHqSYl+yY7jj2otYkzmrQuERDdzTkX2nmQkMAim2CgdfZ > VVjRLn6qFAXb1eHTKUIQcYqsYQFq5j+twL+pEK/N7vuh8Is01SLGrfuiZS7XgeOL > QOhC27F+pCq+zCT0+EHRpzFioWLwBx3oN2wUHIpiSvh0/OaGUOysc5O/1HNFAr6/ > 11n8P8AjimtwMYezwBjxo9lcQw5FvuURGV5dWeEh/8FNCIOhc+ZYxqn6dK4LB/tz > sKj4qdrfhBJ0hR/3Q/l8 > =Y44N > -----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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 09:35:35 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:35:35 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [JNC - Forum] [governance] Tweedledum and TweedledeeWAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <0aa501cff14b$0c2a1740$247e45c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0e7001cff1ea$e39a8670$aacf9350$@gmail.com> From: Richard Hill [mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 3:57 AM To: michael gurstein; 'David Cake' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'McTim'; 'JNC Forum' Subject: RE: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and TweedledeeWAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations Michael: since I don't subscribe to the BestBits list, and since I am mentioned by name in a post to that list, I would appreciate it if you would forward this reply to that list, if you consider that appropriate. I've been asked to explain why I'm so keen on the ITU taking over more control over Internet governance. Actually, I'm mostly keen to find ways to reduce the control over Internet governance currently excercised by the US government and by dominant private companies, most of which are US companies. As an input to discussions, I have indeed suggested that ITU could, for some specific issues, replace the US government's current oversight with a weaker type of oversight. But that's just one of the many options that I think worth considering. Regarding ITU, I find it incongrous that some people appear to think of it as an foe of the Internet. In reality, it was the ITU's 1988 ITRs that first allowed unrestricted use of leased lines by private companies, which was instrumental in facilitating the growth of the Internet. The subsequent GATT (now WTO) agreements reinforced that. ITU-T Recommendation X.509, first approved in 1988, provides the basis for secure Internet communications. More recently, ITU standards such as xDLS and compression are important facilitators of Internet expansion, as are the agreements made in ITU regarding the unlicensed frequencies used for WiFi. Which is not to say that everything that ITU has done is good. But I also find it incongrous that people don't equally criticize other international organizations whose impact on the Internet is significant, such as WIPO, where copyright tends to be reinforced, rather than adapted as many think it should (greater allowance for private copying and shortening the length of copyright protection). Or WTO, which was used to forge ACTA. Again, not everything that those organizations do is bad. Like many complex organizations, including national goverments and private companies, those organizations do things that I agree with and things that I don't agree with. My view is that states do have a role and responsiblity with respect to public policy matters. That's a mainstream view, because it is enunciated in the Tunis Agenda and it was confirmed by Netmundial and by the WSIS+10 High Level Meeting. The mechanisms that currently exist under which states carry out their responsibilities are imperfect, both at the national level, and at the international level, and those mechansims should be improved. Greater multi-stakholder consultation is for sure a way to improve those mechanisms. But replacing those mechanisms with the so-called "equal footing" multi-stakeholder model, which in effect gives veto power to private companies, is not, in my view, an improvement. Formal intergovernmental mechanisms are subject to parliamentary control, and, in particular treaties are, in most countries, subject to ratification by national parliaments. It is harder to establsh democratic control over informal mechanisms, contracts of adhesion, and restrictions imposed by code (as in "code is law"). Returning to ITU again, in my experience, it can be a useful forum for discussing certain issues, and even for reaching agreement at the international level. For example, to lower the price of mobile roaming, and/or to foster greater transparency in wholesale and retail pricing. I find it incongrous that OECD countries appear to oppose such measures, and that not all of civil society organizaitons support such pro-consumer measures. Further, I believe that the current provision in the ITU Constitution on secrecy (meaning privacy) of international telecommunications could be revised so as to make it clear that current mass surveillance practices are unacceptable. I'm surprised that those who oppose mass surveillance have not picked up on that. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: dimanche, 26. octobre 2014 19:31 To: 'David Cake' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'McTim'; 'JNC Forum' Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and TweedledeeWAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITUPlenipot joint recommendations David, From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:35 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Tweedledum and Tweedledee WAS Re: Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On 26 Oct 2014, at 7:17 am, michael gurstein wrote: and yet the MS proponents such as the USG and its allies in CS and elsewhere want to remake the governance of the global (Internet) world in its image. NO, the opposite is true. The internet is cooperatively coordinated by a series of MS entities and processes. It is those who insist that gov't be in charge that are trying to "remake the governance of the global (Internet)" [MG>] well maybe those "who insist that gov't be in charge" believe whatever it is you say they believe (you should ask them) but not sure what that has to do with my comments... Well, you could always ask your JNC colleague Richard Hill about why he was so keen on the ITU taking on more control over Internet governance, I'm sure he will be happy to explain. If you, or the JNC generally, believe that government led, multi-lateral, fora such as the ITU, are also inappropriate for transnational Internet government, I'm sure there are many who would appreciate clarifying your position. [MG>] I have no specialized knowledge or expertise in the details of transnational governance. My discussion was at the level of principles and governance models the detailed application of which I would leave to those (such as Richard Hill) with such specialized knowledge. My own position would be that such governance should take place in the form and in the context most likely to reflect the broader democratic values. I would not either rule in or rule out any specific context prima facie simply because it was or was not a UN agency for example (as seems to be the case for MSists/anti-Democracy proponents). In any case my overall principle would be how the venue and process would most clearly reflect democratic values and processes and for many cases how these activities might further promote and support democratic processes and values. I presume that MSists/anti-Democracy proponents would adopt a similar position concerning MSism i.e. how the particular venue (for example the proposed WEF as a venue) would promote MSism i.e. governance by self-selected elites and further undermining of traditional approaches to Democratic values and governance processes. (BTW, I'm still waiting for the argument from our distinguished CS colleagues towards the HK demonstrators on how MSism will be a "evolutionary enhancement" of the democracy that they have so bravely been advocating. Maybe it is all being done in good faith and with the best of intentions (and I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might want to buy-cheap) or maybe it is a calculated move by some and naivety by others to find a way of giving the global (primarily US based) corporates a governance model which formalizes and legitimizes their increasingly dominant position in the variety of areas of global governance of which the Internet is only one- No, we just want to keep MSism as the dominant paradigm of IG, not of any other area of governance. [MG>] good for you... but you should take you nose out of the router box and take a look at http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/US%20Steer com%20Reelection%20Letter%20-%20signed%20by%20J%206-12-14.pdf I find myself truly baffled as to what you find so sinister about USG support of open government initiatives. Is this just circular reasoning, whereby it is deemed to be bad because the USG is doing it, which can then be taken as an example of the USGs sinister agenda? I know the open government folks in Australia, and they are terrific, the open government movement is something I would have thought CS was unreservedly in favour of, but apparently not.... [MG>] I was in this casual listing simply responding to McTim's quite ill-informed comment that MSism is not being applied in any other area of "governance" however I think my inclusion here of Open Government initiatives in this listing was over-hasty. In fact OG/OGD/OGP activities differ quite significantly from IG MSism in that for OG the MS activities are clearly confined to advisory and accountability processes and not decision making.. A further difference is that, at least at the moment there is no significant corporate involvement in the OGP MS processes (a source of concern it should be said to certain of the governmental proponents of OGP). (I have blogged quite extensively on OG activities .) http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/34304919.pdf http://www.slideshare.net/OECD-DAF/kane-may2014 etc.etc. Yes, corporate investment in nations with weak governance raises a host of policy questions, and the USG has a position on this. Are there specific relevant points in regards to Internet governance, or transnational governance in general, that you are trying to make here? [MG>] no, this is simply a listing pointing to other areas where attempts are being made to implant MSism as a mechanism for global governance. There was a very extensive documentation recently on an attempt including through very heavy corporate involvement, NGO greenwashing, policy log-rolling in favour of corporate interests from various specific national governments, and so on to derail (or rather reconstruct in a MS format) a series of multi-lateral agreements and I believe treaty processes for controlling of deforestation. The result was, rather than a treaty there was a toothless MS governance framework which postponed effective action by at least a decade, made a few NGO/consultants and their corporate clients rich and effectively screwed the rest of us by preventing intervention into a highly destructive (to the common good) lucrative (to the multinational logging companies) status quo of forest cover destruction--(sound familiar at all). (I can't put my finger on the references at the moment but perhaps someone reading this will pass along the relevant link.) They also overlook the extent to which attempts to improve these implementations have been fiercely resisted. Do I even need to mention this? Jean-Christophe says "MS has mainly kept the status quo, and will keep maintaining it if CS do not change their music" - how can it be said that civil society has been in favour of the status quo in multi-stakeholder Internet governance? Because by and large CS is in favour of MSism. We saw that from WSIS thru NetMundial. CS is in favour of MSism, but that doesn't mean the status quo. Look at, for example, the moves through NetMundial and within ICANN to bring human rights explicitly into the policy processes of technical organisations, largely led by CS (and resisted by the technical community). [MG>] some of CS is in favour of MSism. Full-throated almost messianic support for MSism within CS is (thankfully) only confined to the IG space at the moment. The technical community may be resisting human rights in the IG space because of their built in blinders and general policy narrow-mindedess but the corporate folks have no problem with trading off support for HR as in "freedom of expression" and "freedom of assembly" for CS support since it costs them nothing and gains them a huge degree of credibility including with their staff and major market demographics. (It also not coincidentally fits quite well with their "open networks" business models and global marketing strategies.) Just see what happens with that support when, as is conventionally promoted by CS, the inclusion of "social justice" as a Human Right is promoted. I'm still waiting for any of the conventional CS groups in the IG space to come out with a strong position arguing for human rights and social justice i.e. human rights not just for the white Developed Country middle class folks but also as it benefits everyone else in the world. M Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Mon Oct 27 14:02:50 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:02:50 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference In-Reply-To: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> References: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> Message-ID: <544E88CA.8050904@apc.org> Dear all Attached are APC's remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference. Please do send us your feedback. Anriette -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_ITU_Plenipot14.pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 84572 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Mon Oct 27 14:13:49 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:13:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference In-Reply-To: <544E88CA.8050904@apc.org> References: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> <544E88CA.8050904@apc.org> Message-ID: Great work Anriette and Deborah. Cogent, well argued and well written. Kudos. best Anne On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > Attached are APC's remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference. > > Please do send us your feedback. > > 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 > -- 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Oct 27 14:23:06 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:23:06 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference In-Reply-To: References: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> <544E88CA.8050904@apc.org> Message-ID: <544E8D8A.7090905@apc.org> Thanks Anne. It was not easy. But it did help to have the other statements from CS to look at and reflect on. We tried hard to find a tone that will encourage delegates to take the comments seriously, particularly by developing countries, but we should have finished this much earlier. What both Deborah and I agree on, and possibly others would also agree with us, is that civil society does not have clearly though tout demands when it comes to cyber security. My proposal would be that this becomes a topic for Best Bits and Web We Want to think about and work on in the near future. We need something substantial such as 'necessary and proportionate'. We need to know what we want, not just what we don't want. Anriette On 27/10/2014 20:13, Anne Jellema wrote: > Great work Anriette and Deborah. Cogent, well argued and well written. > Kudos. > best > Anne > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > > > Dear all > > Attached are APC's remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary > conference. > > Please do send us your feedback. > > 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 > > > > > -- > 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 -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 27 18:50:18 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:18 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <20141023131729.26791c06@quill> Message-ID: <20141027235018.39e74ec4@quill> Although my request and this entire process so far as been open in public, the negative response which I have today was sent off-list. Since this falsifies claims which were made or implied here in the public discussion, I would suggest that the negative response and its official justification should be posted here too. Specifically I'm referring to the following claims which I believe were implied in previous postings: (a) Openness of the BestBits “fluid working group” on the ITU to all interested civil society colleagues. (b) That the reasons for not publicly opening the email archives of that “fluid working group” have nothing to do with hiding things from civil society colleagues. Nota bene my personal interpretation of the negative response differs from the official justification (which, as I wrote, I think should be posted.) Specifically, I strongly suspect that the true reason is that key leading people in BestBits consider JNC to be a political opponent. By the way in my view there is nothing wrong with creating a coalition or alliance and closing some or all of its processes to access from or review by people who are considered to be actual or potential political opponents. I would have thought that a bit of honesty about that kind of situation would have been appropriate though. Greetings, Norbert On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:22:45 +0200 Anne Jellema wrote: > Dear Norbert, > I have forwarded your request to the list members and I am waiting for > their replies. > Best > anne > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Many thanks, Anne, for your detailed response and explanation. > > > > I would like to hereby request permission review the archive. I'm > > willing to promise to not disclose or discuss with any third parties > > any information of the kind that you have referred to below as being > > sensitive and the reason for not having a fully open archive, unless > > and until said information also becomes available to me through some > > other channel (such as e.g. WCITleaks.) [Nota bene my willingness to > > agree in this particular situation to such a non-disclosure > > commitment should not be read as an agreement in principle to some > > BestBits type processes being less than fully open. It's just > > because I don't intend to start a general public discussion of that > > issue of openness at the current point in time.] > > > > In case an introduction is needed: I'm a German citizen, living in > > Switzerland since a long time, and I'm an advocate for human rights > > and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). I've participated in many > > Internet governance related discourses since a long time, for > > example as a participant in the DRUMS working group at IETF which > > led to RFCs 2821 and 2822, as a participant of the first two > > BestBits meetings (but not the most recent one), as the initiator > > of the process that led to the formation of the Civil Society > > Coordination Group (CSCG), and more recently as a co-convenor of > > the Just Net Coalition (JNC). > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:51:11 +0200 > > Anne Jellema wrote: > > > > > The pre-IGF BB meeting in Istanbul (report on the BB website) > > > agreed on the creation of three fluid working groups. Carolina's > > > note on the outcomes of this meeting, sent to the Best Bits list > > > on 9 September, outlined these groups and who to contact if you > > > wanted to join. Snippet below: > > > > > > > > > > - *ITU working group:* A group of volunteers (see the list in > > > > the BB report) has been formed. If you'd like to join, please > > > > contact Anne Jellema and myself. > > > > > > > > > > > About 30 people requested to join the ITU working group, were > > > duly added and introduced themselves to the group; no one who > > > asked was turned down. > > > > > > The group decided not to open its email list archive. Many of the > > > group members are participating in government delegations, which > > > is a valuable source of information and intelligence that CS > > > needs for effective advocacy (especially in the ITU context where > > > access to documents is highly restricted), but requires that you > > > accept a duty to treat that information with great care. Those on > > > delegations felt that there was some of this information that > > > they could responsibly share with a group of 30 people whose > > > identities, affiliations and reasons for participating in the > > > group they knew, but not with an open mailing list of 370 people. > > > > > > Second, as mentioned above and also stressed in my note to the > > > list the other day, this was a group of volunteers who prepared a > > > statement and opened it to the wider BB list for endorsement (or > > > not). The statement has not been issued in the name of "civil > > > society" or "Best Bits" but only in the name of the organisations > > > who chose to sign it. > > > > > > I hope that answers your questions but feel free to follow up. > > > > > > Best, > > > Anne > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Norbert Bollow > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:38:08 +0200 > > > > Anne Jellema wrote on the BestBits > > > > list: > > > > > > > > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to > > > > > try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU > > > > > Plenipot. > > > > > > > > May I ask some questions about this?: > > > > > > > > Was this an open process which any interested civil society > > > > person would have been accepted to join upon request? > > > > > > > > Are there publicly accessible mailing list archives somewhere? > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > Norbert From lists at digitaldissidents.org Tue Oct 28 00:01:10 2014 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:01:10 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] APC remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference In-Reply-To: <544E8D8A.7090905@apc.org> References: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> <544E88CA.8050904@apc.org> <544E8D8A.7090905@apc.org> Message-ID: <544F1506.1010205@digitaldissidents.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 +1 Anne +1 Anriette - We need a positive position, works much better (and is more fun) than just critiquing positions of others. Happy to work on this. As I already said to Deborah, I really liked the approach to IXPs, peering and spectrum in your proposal. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 10/28/2014 03:23 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks Anne. > > It was not easy. But it did help to have the other statements from > CS to look at and reflect on. > > We tried hard to find a tone that will encourage delegates to take > the comments seriously, particularly by developing countries, but > we should have finished this much earlier. What both Deborah and I > agree on, and possibly others would also agree with us, is that > civil society does not have clearly though tout demands when it > comes to cyber security. > > My proposal would be that this becomes a topic for Best Bits and > Web We Want to think about and work on in the near future. > > We need something substantial such as 'necessary and > proportionate'. We need to know what we want, not just what we > don't want. > > Anriette > > > On 27/10/2014 20:13, Anne Jellema wrote: >> Great work Anriette and Deborah. Cogent, well argued and well >> written. Kudos. best Anne >> >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >> >> Dear all >> >> Attached are APC's remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary >> conference. >> >> Please do send us your feedback. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUTxUGAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpCeAH+wcRszpCzPs9s/ireHtIuAvQ UdsbZ1hD1Zla9evCpYUbRTtTvX4Wz2ba8PhoZc8hqr+axLpVSXKKx4eV9ub/0Pbt UfeQx/4kprL06QZCMitw9del8bYuVFFJH3agQKAovL0T/JGJrogpwr74pJrJgXc4 51j5BTllYtIf/atoSma2/PSZJYgFIC4rwZP1ngcCbxkD2n20Dwx6E5hQyqFPNJjF MbCtGy57lPAawIJMdaag5tK/XtfBgLrGLfYPRMfdseVjVga0vQZJjdSgpQN8I6wX dtnTHeh6D5byH+MxZhe6EEgNtDKy/RhYkRlPWWRuMWAy1falyVMiHKH302c8UwE= =IYEU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From geetha at cis-india.org Tue Oct 28 04:33:12 2014 From: geetha at cis-india.org (Geetha Hariharan) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:33:12 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] India's Draft Resolution at the ITU: A human rights analysis Message-ID: <544F54C8.9010305@cis-india.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 An analysis of some human rights implications of India's new draft resolutions at the ITU: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/good-intentions-going-awry-i-why-india2019s-proposal-at-the-itu-is-troubling-for-internet-freedoms Comments and suggestions welcome! Best, Geetha. - -- Geetha Hariharan Programme Officer Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 8860 360717 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUT1TIAAoJENMCY59StgV58UoH/RmMj3LYH7OsOpQxYWuAun/j a4raqE1Dmg8KXu2lkK5leToMAz5fJXryic1bZRxcZDG1R07eRx62JbMwVdQDII9s SomnF22yOVcIZ1os4Nol6KV/vS4Z2WvoR3+XD54x9c0h01OvhNeq36Tzl3abDloO 6oL4Jd41Go0/JWg4UoiXY3qwJ7QWBICwgZ4zr+/0/fzl1Ugdt2CqWflljTmCvV8p DHr3p5p2Q8dq7KEszHH9d0bXYEvEfkqzr3wcVrnVrHyPGZ78eZVgWHPJSfrpgjza 9dto7uVItqcu0Zx4EElhr+KM58Q3LqqujKnoeCGeA63TisihgCiQOFHYljvVyNk= =Oqrc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Oct 28 06:19:43 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:19:43 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] [ITU-PP - cyber security] Comparison of current and proposed changes on resolution 130 Message-ID: <544F6DBF.2060202@varonferraz.com> Dear all, Reading APC excellent remarks on PP and trying to understand what is at stake in the debate of new proposals for resolution 130: "Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence**and security in the use of information and communication technologies*"*, I've been working in this spreadsheet to compare different proposals that have been submitted with the current text of that resolution: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jihGnkCLxuXVM1c2ZkNXlfpBbWGLhTMChK1UxCh37sg/edit?usp=sharing * **Current Status of the debate:* There has been 4 proposals with some substantial changes: - Brazil - Arab group - RCC (Russia) - Indonesia - Cuba And there is a proposal with practically no change (from CEPT) and a NOC (No-change) from US. The resolution (and proposals) is being debated in an ad hoc group chaired by Brazil. Based on the CEPT proposal and on the US NOC, the five eyes (US,UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), sometimes using the discourse of mission creep, have been repeatedly intervened to block any change, even though the whole text is being negotiated under brackets. On the other hand, besides Brazil, it is not the most freedom friendly countries that have been pushing for change. Analyzing the original current text (and other docs), we can observe that it is within ITU's mandate to deal with some aspects of cybersecurity and it is already doing. So, I believe that the argument of "mission creep" has been thrown in a way a bit misleading, I see US et all using "freedom" solely to protect their market. And I do believe that texts like that resolution should be updated, particularly if based on latest achievements in negotiations at other UN foruns, like the resolution about privacy in the digital age, and other documents from the WSIS+10 review process, which ITU is part of. I know this is not consensus within civil society. And I know that proposals do not come from the most exciting progressive group of countries. Brazilian position can be seen as a middle ground. But, yes, it could be tricky, but I'm always bored if I catch myself in any alliance with US gov discourses, so I tend to flag a red light when it happens. I hope the spreed sheet sheds a light in this particular issue and we can brainstorm a bit about*risks and possibilities,* particularly on the Brazilian position vis-a-vis current res. kind regards joana -- Joana Varon @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 28 06:34:51 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:34:51 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?JNC_statement_=22Governing_the_global_Intern?= =?UTF-8?Q?et_=E2=80=93_is_the_status_quo_the_only_option=3F=22?= Message-ID: <20141028113451.02a33891@quill> Dear all The new JNC statement "Governing the global Internet – is the status quo the only option?" is available at http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014_Stmt2.pdf Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition From lea at gp-digital.org Tue Oct 28 08:48:40 2014 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:48:40 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [ITU Plenipot] Recap Oct 20-28 Message-ID: Hi all, For those of you interested in the ITU PP, find below an attempt to summarise some of the highlights of the last couple of days at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. For those of you still coming to Busan, we have secured a meeting room and are now holding coordination meetings in Room K every day at 17:30 (local time - KST) - unless communicated otherwise. Also, a second meeting with the ITU Secretariat will take place on Friday, 8AM (KST). If you have suggestions for what issues should be raised at that meeting, share them here. Hope this is helpful. Best, Lea & the jolly PP team --- Plenipot recap (Oct 20-28) 1. Elections highlights - Mr. Zhao from China elected as new Secretary General, Mr. Johnson from UK elected as Deputy SG. They assume their posts at the beginning of 2015. - Elections for seats on ITU Council and Radio Regulations Board (RRB) took place earlier today (Monday). Full results available here . 2. Procedures and setting up the work of committees - Work of Committees has been established and discussions have kicked off. - From a HR/internet perspective, relevant committees will be Committee 5 (e.g. counterfeit devices), Committee 6 (e.g. access to ITU docs), and the Working Group of the Plenary – WGPL (public policy issues). These meetings will be webcast, however the ad hoc groups that stem from these main committees (and where the actual discussions about text take place) won’t. - After a set of proposals is presented in a committee or the WGPL, but not yet discussed, the Chair establishes ad hoc working groups or drafting groups to streamline discussions on proposals that are topically related. Most ad hocs run in parallel. - The ad hocs work on specific text and report back on progress to the relevant mother ship (Committees or WGPL). If no agreement on text is reached in an ad hoc group, discussion is referred back to the Committee/WGPL. 3. Discussions Overview of main discussions divided by relevant committee or ad hoc working group, adapted from the official ITU blog . This list is not exhaustive and many proposals haven’t been discussed yet. You can find the full ITU PP daily schedule here . Committee 5 – Ad hoc working group on Res 177 and draft new resolution on counterfeit devices - Ad hoc has finished first reading of the new resolution on counterfeit devices - The new draft contains problematic text that, in an effort to combat counterfeit and unauthorised devices, may disproportionately and negatively affect user connectivity, innovation, and efforts to bridge the digital divide. - The group meets again on Wednesday, 17:30, Room F Committee 5 and 6 – Access to ITU documents and opening up of ITU meetings (Decision 11, Decision 12, New Decision on access to ITU documents, etc.) - Proposal to amend Decision 12 (Free online access to ITU ) was approved in Committee 6 and has been forwarded to the editorial committee. Decision 12 now states that all basic ITU texts (including resolutions, decisions, etc.) should be open to general public on a permanent basis. - Decision 12 still won’t allow access to working and temporary documents of the ITU, nor does it open meetings to non-members. Proposals along these lines are yet to be discussed. WGPL – Ad hoc working group on Resolution 130 (Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) - Seven proposals have been submitted to the conference for consideration regarding Resolution 130 and presented by US, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Brazil, Algeria, UK, and Indonesia. Consolidated version of proposals can be found here . - Several Member States supported the proposals to modify Resolution 130, mentioning that in the last four years, the global ICT landscape had changed, as had cyber threats and that there was therefore a need to adjust the resolution to address new and emerging challenges. Others supported the proposal from the United States, essentially calling for "No Change", arguing that during PP-10 much time had been spent negotiating the existing text, which is still considered appropriate. - The ad hoc to discuss these proposals, chaired by Brazil, met for the first time on Saturday and has managed to carry out the first reading of parts of the preamble. - Next time on the agenda: Tuesday, 18:30, Room A WGPL – Ad hoc working group on Internet-related resolutions (Res 101, Res 102, Res 133, Res 180, and 4 new proposals) - WGPL established an ad hoc group to look at a group of internet-related resolutions including: - 101 – Internet Protocol-based networks - 102 – ITU’s role in international internet related public policy issues & management of internet resources, including domain names and addresses - 133 – Role of Member States in the management of internationalised (multilingual) domain names - 180 – Facilitating the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 - 4 newly proposed resolutions: - Proposal for new resolution “Voluntary guidelines and best practices for designing, installing and operating Internet exchange points (IXP)” (IAP-7) - Proposal for new resolution “Bridging the international connectivity divide” (PRG-1) - Proposal for new resolution “Preserving and promoting multilingualism on the Internet for an integrating and inclusive information society” (IAP-1) - Proposal for new resolution “ITU’s role in realizing Secure Information Society” [IND-1] - Current version of consolidated proposals for this ad hoc group can be accessed here . - So far, this ad hoc has met twice and has gone through two readings of Res 133 and Res 101; - Any reference to ‘multistakeholder’ is being challenged by Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc. Due to lack of agreement, most text in both resolutions is currently in square brackets. - Next time on the agenda: Wednesday 17:30, Room B WGPL – Ad hoc on resolution 174 (ITU's role with regard to international public policy issues relating to the risk of illicit use of ICTs) - A total of seven proposals to revise this resolution have been submitted to the conference for consideration by Cuba, Brazil and Algeria (on behalf of Arab region). - The ad-hoc group, led by Algeria, met for the first time on Monday, and finished the first reading of the consolidated draft proposals. There was very little agreement and most text was put in square brackets. - Arab states proposed that ITU start reflecting on the implementation of a global charter on cybersecurity. UK & US opposed and asked for clarification on meaning of ‘illicit’ and how this would complement other ITU activities. - Next time on the agenda: TBC WGPL – Ad hoc on WSIS related resolutions (Res 140, Res 172) - An ad hoc has been established and will begin its work on Wednesday, 18:30, Room C --- *Lea Kaspar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Thu Oct 2 03:11:16 2014 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 12:11:16 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) In-Reply-To: <000001cfdcd5$634e89f0$29eb9dd0$@IGFPAK.org> References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org> <000001cfdcd5$634e89f0$29eb9dd0$@IGFPAK.org> Message-ID: <542CFA94.1060205@bytesforall.pk> Dear Jeremy and colleagues, Several CSOs in Asia including FMA (Philippines), Open Institute (Cambodia), BFES (Bangladesh), Bytes for All (Pakistan) are nominating and supporting Byoungil Oh of Jinbonet, Korea for the MAG. We strongly believe that he makes a great candidate for this important job. We are seeking endorsement of his candidature from Best Bits, APC and others. Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 2:03 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the process: * Avri Doria * Lea Kaspar * John Dada * Matthew Shears * Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Before we close on September 30 this is a last call for any final nominations. Can I also please ask those who haven't already done so to send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria? Thanks. On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: This is a call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG). This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30 If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email to jmalcolm at eff.org. Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, country of residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection criteria. CRITERIA * Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. * Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. * Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations. Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also follow this process. Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The list of candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October 16. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Oct 8 22:36:06 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 23:36:06 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) In-Reply-To: References: <5434A83E.9070100@apc.org> <5435B164.9010608@apc.org> Message-ID: <5435F496.2000503@varonferraz.com> ps. just shared the link for signatures with lists in latam and brazil.. I would suggest to folks from other regions to do the same... Then it would be good to wait a bit (until Thursday night at least?) so we can collect a bit more signatures from a more diverse variety of regions.. my two cents best joana On 08-10-2014 20:13, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Hi all, > > In response to Deborah's question - we will be sending the letter to the ITU tomorrow midday UTC. The letter will remain open for endorsements after that (until tomorrow evening I think), but please note that your organisation won't be included in the list of signatories unless you add your endorsement by noon UTC. > > Apologies for the inconvenience - it is important to send the letter out as soon as we can tomorrow to ensure we have enough time for follow up activities with the Secretariat as well as Member States. > > Best, > Lea > >> On 8 Oct 2014, at 22:49, Deborah Brown wrote: >> > Dear all, The letter is now posted on the Best Bits platform for > endorsements. http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ > > I understand that the the letter is meant to go to the ITU on > Thursday, but if someone could give a more specific cutoff time for > endorsements, that would be helpful. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > >>> On 10/8/14 1:44 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >>> Great suggestion Deborah - the ITU fluid working group supports > >>> this idea. Best Anne > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Deborah Brown >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Anne for this great summary and coordinating this. > >>> > >>> In addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary General, > >>> could we also address it to (or copy) the current deputy Secretary > >>> General who is the uncontested candidate to be the next SG? It > >>> could be strategic to start engaging him early on and relevant to > >>> include him in his current post in any case. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, Deborah > >>> > >>>> On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >>>> Dear friends,____ > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a > >>>> fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at > >>>> the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a > >>>> group of around 25 members of civil society have been > >>>> coordinating various activities:____ > >>> > >>>> • Pre-conference knowledge sharing;____ > >>> > >>>> • Coordination of specific advocacy efforts;____ > >>> > >>>> • Organising on the ground civil society activities in > >>>> Busan.____ > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group has > >>>> developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP > >>>> Conference processes. Please find the letter here: > >>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . > >>> > >>> > >>>> Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, and > >>>> seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process > >>>> of consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that > >>>> the text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather > >>>> than the standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After > >>>> this, a final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as > >>>> possible, will be available for 24 hours for endorsements. > >>> > >>> > >>>> During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage > >>>> members to focus on red lines that would prevent them from > >>>> endorsing the letter rather than detailed line by line edits. > >>> > >>> > >>>> This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and > >>>> encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate > >>>> broader stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This > >>>> does not preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at > >>>> Member States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the > >>>> Conference outcomes. > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary > >>>> General/Secretariat later this week, and then to various ITU > >>>> delegations as an FYI. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the > >>>> drafting. > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the > >>>> efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. __ > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> Very 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 29 00:41:48 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:11:48 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> For a long time I have believed, and in fact still do, that a transnational system of naming, numbering, and routing of Internet traffic, which does not fully map on to sovereign boundaries, is an excellent check on the national state's inherent tendency to use possible controls on a nation's informational space for illegitimate purposes. However, for this purpose, that particular transnational system has to be fair and just, and democratic. And since nothing is perfect, it should at least show marked tendencies in the direction of becoming fair, just and democratic. The problem however is that the current transnational system - managed by the ICANN family of institutions - and of course under significant US control - shows no such signs of becoming what it needs to become, ie fair, just and democratic. Developing countries, including India, have for decades been crying hoarse, pleading, 'please, become more fair and democratic...'. Such appeals get the most humiliating responses - from a stony silence, to, well, 'we made the Internet, and so have some regard and patience'. India, and some others like Brazil, at least must be credited for being extremely patient and conciliatory. (I sometime marvel how they have been so patient .) But all this to no avail. The hegemony stays unshaken, just gets more and more strengthened by the day.... (Unfortunately, most of, what goes in the name of, civil society in the IG space has consistently supported this hegemony, *for all practical purposes* but let me not digress.) In the circumstances, I think that any self respecting country has no other option but to say, ok, if you just refuse to budge on the international regime, let the sovereign countries do these things themselves - meaning, naming, numbering, and routing processes. The rule of democratic law must apply, and if it cannot apply through international regimes, then let it be through separate national ones. That is what the India proposal is about. As I said, I still think that a positive tension between a (fair and democratic) transnational system and a more close-to-things and implementable national one is the best thing in this space, is best for the Internet, generally, speaking. But if those who squat in the positions of power and control over the current global regime (see Just Net Coalition's latest statement ) simply refuse to hear, I think that it is absolutely fair for a country like India to bring such a resolution to any appropriate global governance forum, as it has to the ITU Plenipotentiary. In fact it wont be doing its duty if it were not to so such a thing. I hope more countries back this resolution, and it serves to create positive tension vis a vis the current unacceptable global regime, out of which contestation something good, which is the best for the global public interest comes out.. parminder On Monday 27 October 2014 03:28 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > */[MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with > many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… /* > > instructs the Secretary General > 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and > intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management > to develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different > countries are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution > of IP addresses accordingly; > 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including > International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies > for allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including > naming, numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, > just, democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities > designated with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning > resources and dealing with day-to-day technical and operational matters; > 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks > that addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, > resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide > guidance on technical capabilities to developing countries; > 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for > the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region > takes place within the country; > 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which > ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic > originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; > 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing > the network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability > of communication; > 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the > weaknesses of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop > and recommend secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the > requirements of future networks in view of the envisaged manifold > increase in traffic and end devices in near future in the light of IoT > and M2M needs; > 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at difference.com.au Wed Oct 29 02:37:32 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:37:32 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> References: <0b7c01cff167$f8195910$e84c0b30$@gmail.com> <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 29 Oct 2014, at 12:41 pm, parminder wrote: > For a long time I have believed, and in fact still do, that a transnational system of naming, numbering, and routing of Internet traffic, which does not fully map on to sovereign boundaries, is an excellent check on the national state's inherent tendency to use possible controls on a nation's informational space for illegitimate purposes. Well, it is great when we can agree. > However, for this purpose, that particular transnational system has to be fair and just, and democratic. And since nothing is perfect, it should at least show marked tendencies in the direction of becoming fair, just and democratic. Do you believe that allocation based on need for IPv4 was not fair and just? I'd add that I, personally, would have to add 'objective and rational' to the list of desirable characteristics, because India seems to be proposing something that seems on the face of it to approach what seems to satisfy some of its principles, yet is poorly though out and probably unimplementable... > The problem however is that the current transnational system - managed by the ICANN family of institutions - and of course under significant US control - shows no such signs of becoming what it needs to become, ie fair, just and democratic. > > Developing countries, including India, have for decades been crying hoarse, pleading, 'please, become more fair and democratic...'. Well, crying some variant of 'please give more power to national governments', and claiming it's all about democracy while sitting next to China and Russia and the KSA etc... > Such appeals get the most humiliating responses - from a stony silence, to, well, 'we made the Internet, and so have some regard and patience'. Or the observation that claiming it is all about democracy while enlisting the support of China and Russia against a system backed by a wide range of democratic nations looks a bit suspicious..... > India, and some others like Brazil, at least must be credited for being extremely patient and conciliatory. (I sometime marvel how they have been so patient .) But all this to no avail. The hegemony stays unshaken, just gets more and more strengthened by the day.... (Unfortunately, most of, what goes in the name of, civil society in the IG space has consistently supported this hegemony, *for all practical purposes* but let me not digress.) Cries to become more democratic aside (I've already observed that JNC rhetoric about democracy seems to frequently end up calling for solutions that seem somewhat un-democratic to me, so we are unlikely to agree unless you are willing to break with the JNC general push towards the ITU), do you have an issue with the current process or result? So, do you have a problem with the actual allocation of IP#s followed by the RIRs? You would have proposed a different principle than allocation via need, so slowing internet deployment in early adopting areas? > In the circumstances, I think that any self respecting country has no other option but to say, ok, if you just refuse to budge on the international regime, let the sovereign countries do these things themselves - meaning, naming, numbering, and routing processes. > The rule of democratic law must apply, and if it cannot apply through international regimes, then let it be through separate national ones. That is what the India proposal is about. Ah, yes, the ever popular JNC line of 'in order to make it more democratic, it is important to empower state based governance even when its undemocratic'. I'm still not able to reconcile the rhetoric with the result. Cheers David > As I said, I still think that a positive tension between a (fair and democratic) transnational system and a more close-to-things and implementable national one is the best thing in this space, is best for the Internet, generally, speaking. But if those who squat in the positions of power and control over the current global regime (see Just Net Coalition's latest statement ) simply refuse to hear, I think that it is absolutely fair for a country like India to bring such a resolution to any appropriate global governance forum, as it has to the ITU Plenipotentiary. In fact it wont be doing its duty if it were not to so such a thing. > > I hope more countries back this resolution, and it serves to create positive tension vis a vis the current unacceptable global regime, out of which contestation something good, which is the best for the global public interest comes out.. > > parminder > > On Monday 27 October 2014 03:28 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> [MG>] this one seems to be causing a fair amount of controversy with many of the Status Quo-ists going apoplectic… >> >> instructs the Secretary General >> 1 to collaborate with all stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations, involved in IP addresses management to develop an IP address plan from which IP addresses of different countries are easily discernible and coordinate to ensure distribution of IP addresses accordingly; >> 2 to collaborate with all the concerned stakeholders including International and intergovernmental organizations to develop policies for allocation, assignment and management of IP resources including naming, numbering and addressing which is systematic, equitable, fair, just, democratic and transparent and need to be adhered to by entities designated with the responsibilities of allocating or assigning resources and dealing with day-to-day technical and operational matters; >> 3 to prepare reference plan for current and future telecom networks that addresses concerns of Member States including safety, robustness, resilience, routing in normal and exceptional cases and provide guidance on technical capabilities to developing countries; >> 4 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures effectively that address resolution for the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country/region takes place within the country; >> 5 to develop and recommend public telecom network architecture which ensures that effectively the traffic meant for the country, traffic originating and terminating in the country remains within the country; >> 6 to develop and recommend a routing plan of traffic for optimizing the network resources that could effectively ensure the traceability of communication; >> 7 to collaborate with all stakeholders involved in studying the weaknesses of present protocols used in telecom networks and develop and recommend secure, robust and tamper proof protocols to meet the requirements of future networks in view of the envisaged manifold increase in traffic and end devices in near future in the light of IoT and M2M needs; >> 8 to submit an annual report on above to the ITU council. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Forum mailing list >> Forum at justnetcoalition.org >> http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From anriette at apc.org Wed Oct 29 04:37:51 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:37:51 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC assessment of the 2014 IGF In-Reply-To: <54509859.5050101@apc.org> References: <54509859.5050101@apc.org> Message-ID: <5450A75F.3060507@apc.org> Dear all Attached is the APC assessment of the 2014 IGF and recommendations for 2015. Anriette -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF2014 assessmentFINAL_27102014_FOR SUBMISSION.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 145724 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pouzin at well.com Wed Oct 29 07:06:49 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:06:49 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The India's proposals at PP, commented by Parminder, sounds like rational politics in the context of an hegemonic State representing its own lobbies/monopolies and a worldwide mass surveillance/spying organisation. Whether each State is more or less democratic is a diversion in the discussion, which pertains to independence and mutual trust. Of course impacts have to be analysed, but this is for each State to draw its conclusions. Louis - - - On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Richard Hill wrote: > I agree with Parminder's analysis. > > Best, > Richard > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 29 14:22:25 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:22:25 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management In-Reply-To: References: <5450700C.3020003@itforchange.net> , Message-ID: Sorry to intrude, but can someone explain how Alibaba's record $20 billion IPO and valuation predicted by Wall Street to trend towards $500 billion, dwarfing those of most of certain parties favorite US Internet business is evil targets, fits in this equation? http://www.businessinsider.com/analysts-on-alibaba-2014-10 My personal view: I suggest the unipolar/state-centric frame offered by some to consider who is winning from the present - distributed Internet architecture - doesn't match the market data.? Or at the least, it is short accounting for a few more hegemons who appear to doing quite well under the ancien regime, thank you. ; ). Lee ? ________________________________ From: pouzin at gmail.com on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:06 AM To: forum at justnetcoalition.org Cc: parminder; michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,; rhill Subject: Re: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management The India's proposals at PP, commented by Parminder, sounds like rational politics in the context of an hegemonic State representing its own lobbies/monopolies and a worldwide mass surveillance/spying organisation. Whether each State is more or less democratic is a diversion in the discussion, which pertains to independence and mutual trust. Of course impacts have to be analysed, but this is for each State to draw its conclusions. Louis - - - On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Richard Hill > wrote: I agree with Parminder's analysis. Best, Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Thu Oct 30 13:35:02 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:35:02 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] APC remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference In-Reply-To: <544F1506.1010205@digitaldissidents.org> References: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> <544E88CA.8050904@apc.org> <544E8D8A.7090905@apc.org> <544F1506.1010205@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <545276C6.5000009@softwarefreedom.org> Anriette, I am just seeing this and would love to read the document but unable to find it. an you please send across a copy? On 10/28/2014 12:01 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > +1 Anne > > +1 Anriette - We need a positive position, works much better (and is > more fun) than just critiquing positions of others. Happy to work on > this. > > As I already said to Deborah, I really liked the approach to IXPs, > peering and spectrum in your proposal. > > Best, > > Niels > > > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 10/28/2014 03:23 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Thanks Anne. > > > It was not easy. But it did help to have the other statements from > > CS to look at and reflect on. > > > We tried hard to find a tone that will encourage delegates to take > > the comments seriously, particularly by developing countries, but > > we should have finished this much earlier. What both Deborah and I > > agree on, and possibly others would also agree with us, is that > > civil society does not have clearly though tout demands when it > > comes to cyber security. > > > My proposal would be that this becomes a topic for Best Bits and > > Web We Want to think about and work on in the near future. > > > We need something substantial such as 'necessary and > > proportionate'. We need to know what we want, not just what we > > don't want. > > > Anriette > > > > On 27/10/2014 20:13, Anne Jellema wrote: > >> Great work Anriette and Deborah. Cogent, well argued and well > >> written. Kudos. best Anne > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dear all > >> > >> Attached are APC's remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary > >> conference. > >> > >> Please do send us your feedback. > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Oct 30 17:14:38 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:14:38 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference In-Reply-To: <545276C6.5000009@softwarefreedom.org> References: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> <544E88CA.8050904@apc.org> <544E8D8A.7090905@apc.org> <544F1506.1010205@digitaldissidents.org> <545276C6.5000009@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <5452AA3E.204@apc.org> Here is the link Mishi. Anriette http://www.apc.org/en/node/19947 On 30/10/2014 19:35, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > Anriette, > > I am just seeing this and would love to read the document but unable > to find it. an you please send across a copy? > > > On 10/28/2014 12:01 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> +1 Anne >> >> +1 Anriette - We need a positive position, works much better (and is >> more fun) than just critiquing positions of others. Happy to work on >> this. >> >> As I already said to Deborah, I really liked the approach to IXPs, >> peering and spectrum in your proposal. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> >> Niels ten Oever >> Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> >> On 10/28/2014 03:23 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> > Thanks Anne. >> >> > It was not easy. But it did help to have the other statements from >> > CS to look at and reflect on. >> >> > We tried hard to find a tone that will encourage delegates to take >> > the comments seriously, particularly by developing countries, but >> > we should have finished this much earlier. What both Deborah and I >> > agree on, and possibly others would also agree with us, is that >> > civil society does not have clearly though tout demands when it >> > comes to cyber security. >> >> > My proposal would be that this becomes a topic for Best Bits and >> > Web We Want to think about and work on in the near future. >> >> > We need something substantial such as 'necessary and >> > proportionate'. We need to know what we want, not just what we >> > don't want. >> >> > Anriette >> >> >> > On 27/10/2014 20:13, Anne Jellema wrote: >> >> Great work Anriette and Deborah. Cogent, well argued and well >> >> written. Kudos. best Anne >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> >> >> Attached are APC's remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary >> >> conference. >> >> >> >> Please do send us your feedback. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- 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 >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > 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 -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Thu Oct 30 18:23:42 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:23:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] APC remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary conference In-Reply-To: <5452AA3E.204@apc.org> References: <544E835E.8090400@apc.org> <544E88CA.8050904@apc.org> <544E8D8A.7090905@apc.org> <544F1506.1010205@digitaldissidents.org> <545276C6.5000009@softwarefreedom.org> <5452AA3E.204@apc.org> Message-ID: <5452BA6E.2030709@softwarefreedom.org> Thanks! On 10/30/2014 05:14 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Here is the link Mishi. > > Anriette > > http://www.apc.org/en/node/19947 > > > On 30/10/2014 19:35, Mishi Choudhary wrote: >> Anriette, >> >> I am just seeing this and would love to read the document but unable >> to find it. an you please send across a copy? >> >> >> On 10/28/2014 12:01 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >>> +1 Anne >>> >>> +1 Anriette - We need a positive position, works much better (and is >>> more fun) than just critiquing positions of others. Happy to work on >>> this. >>> >>> As I already said to Deborah, I really liked the approach to IXPs, >>> peering and spectrum in your proposal. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Niels >>> >>> >>> Niels ten Oever >>> Head of Digital >>> >>> Article 19 >>> www.article19.org >>> >>> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >>> >>> On 10/28/2014 03:23 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> > Thanks Anne. >>> >>> > It was not easy. But it did help to have the other statements from >>> > CS to look at and reflect on. >>> >>> > We tried hard to find a tone that will encourage delegates to take >>> > the comments seriously, particularly by developing countries, but >>> > we should have finished this much earlier. What both Deborah and I >>> > agree on, and possibly others would also agree with us, is that >>> > civil society does not have clearly though tout demands when it >>> > comes to cyber security. >>> >>> > My proposal would be that this becomes a topic for Best Bits and >>> > Web We Want to think about and work on in the near future. >>> >>> > We need something substantial such as 'necessary and >>> > proportionate'. We need to know what we want, not just what we >>> > don't want. >>> >>> > Anriette >>> >>> >>> > On 27/10/2014 20:13, Anne Jellema wrote: >>> >> Great work Anriette and Deborah. Cogent, well argued and well >>> >> written. Kudos. best Anne >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Dear all >>> >> >>> >> Attached are APC's remarks on the ITU's 2014 plenipotentiary >>> >> conference. >>> >> >>> >> Please do send us your feedback. >>> >> >>> >> 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- 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 >>> >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> -- >> 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 > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa > anriette at apc.org > 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 -- 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 joao.caribe at me.com Thu Oct 30 21:01:31 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:01:31 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance Schools and Fellowship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6C8D44D3-15F2-40EC-9179-AD7A08916E24@me.com> Dears, I'm writing an article about how to enter the debate on Internet governance, and I want to relate the major scholarship programs and schools of Internet governance worldwide. So far I have: Pre IGF LACIGF (LAC) - CGI.Br (Integral) - Lacnic (Partial) //Other Regional IGF and they fellowship program LANIC / LACNOG (LAC) - Lacnic (Partial) IGF (Global) - CGI.Br (Integral) - ISOC (??) - APC (??) - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program - Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program ICANN (Global) - Fellowship Program (Integral) - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program Schools of Internet Governance - EGI - CGI.br - https://egi.nic.br/ - Brazil - Euro SSGI - http://www.euro-ssig.eu/ - Europe and the region - South School on Internet Governance - http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/en/ - African School on Internet Governance (APC) - http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ I wanna to gatalog and share this informations, also from other regional IGFs,Internet Governance Schools and other open events on IG. The article will be published in Portuguese and English, under Creative Commons, anyone woul copy, share, adapt and translate. Any help will be very welcome. -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Oct 30 21:58:50 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:58:50 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance Schools and Fellowship In-Reply-To: <6C8D44D3-15F2-40EC-9179-AD7A08916E24@me.com> References: <6C8D44D3-15F2-40EC-9179-AD7A08916E24@me.com> Message-ID: Diplo Foundation as a major school On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:01 PM, "João Carlos R. Caribé" wrote: > Dears, > > I'm writing an article about how to enter the debate on Internet > governance, and I want to relate the major scholarship programs and schools > of Internet governance worldwide. > > So far I have: > > Pre IGF > LACIGF (LAC) > - CGI.Br (Integral) > - Lacnic (Partial) > > //Other Regional IGF and they fellowship program > > LANIC / LACNOG (LAC) > - Lacnic (Partial) > > IGF (Global) > - CGI.Br (Integral) > - ISOC (??) > - APC (??) > - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program > - Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program > > ICANN (Global) > - Fellowship Program (Integral) > - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program > > > Schools of Internet Governance > - EGI - CGI.br - https://egi.nic.br/ - Brazil > - Euro SSGI - http://www.euro-ssig.eu/ - Europe and the region > - South School on Internet Governance - > http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/en/ > - African School on Internet Governance (APC) - > http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ > > I wanna to gatalog and share this informations, also from other > regional IGFs,Internet Governance Schools and other open events on IG. > > The article will be published in Portuguese and English, under Creative > Commons, anyone woul copy, share, adapt and translate. > > > Any help will be very welcome. > -- > João Carlos R. Caribé > Consultor > Skype joaocaribe > (021) 4042 7727 > (021) 9 8761 1967 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- *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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 9 01:03:47 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:33:47 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: <5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> <54300582.4030002@itforchange.net> <5cc07bf192ce484fb6fcec8d03508871@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <54361733.8050906@itforchange.net> Milton There are two levels to this discussion, one is a simple argumentative-ness, and a second one which in my view address the key issue of who or which actors can and should be considered as the primary target of global civil society advocacy, as being the prime threats to the kind of global Internet that we want to see in global public interest. And an associated question being, which actors are blocking rightful public interest governance of the global Internet. I will first respond in this email to your largely superficial if not misleading arguments, and address the key underlying question in my next email. excuse my indulgence.... parminder On Sunday 05 October 2014 11:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > > > Throughout this email, you seamlessly move between UN based > international law making and US law making, which may get forced on > the world bec of the US's economic and technical might, as if there > isnt any real substantive difference between the two... > > MM: Nope. I make it very clear when I am talking about one or the > other. Your point was “the U.S.” was preventing us from talking about > certain issues. My contention was simply that the U.S. is talking > about those things extensively at its own domestic level, and that > indeed, many of those dialogues originated in the U.S. and went > transnational. No confusion as to levels. > PJS: No. I said, and I quote "We badly need a global discussions on and adoption of a model law on IP based telecommunications, and on net neutrality. But any such possibility will be resisted tooth and nail, and a lot of resources thrown into it." What I am saying is that US and its cohorts prevent global discussion and *adoption* of needed public policy frameworks in the IG space... Do you content this statement. if you do, lets focus our discussion on that. Or else, concede. > When did I say there is no global discussion on net neutrality ? > > MM: In your original post. Glad to see you backing off here. > PJS: Can you please quote me, instead of insisting that I said something which I did not, and then saying I am backing off..... What I said is quoted above, I never said "there is no global discussion on net neutrality". It would be stupid to say that - I myself am a member of two global coalitions on NN. > > ... As for the resistance to it and the resources thrown in for that > sake I have historical details of how an NN debate and position > forming got resisted on the IGC list as well in the MAG, for years, > before it was finally taken up this year, > > MM: Another factual error. See this, a NN workshop from 2011: > > http://intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article?id=883:ig4d-workshop-183-a-possible-framework-for-global-net-neutrality > PJS: Again, I do know there have been workshops on NN at the IGF.... One of them, at Baku, was actually organised by me for ITfC. Can you stop producing meaningless and diversionary 'evidence'. > Yes, I know the European Commission as well as Council of Europe has > been working on it, and I have participated especially in the latter's > effort. > > MM: So apparently the “US” effort to prevent discussion has failed > there, too. > PJS: Yes, US does get away with everything it wants. We all know that. But it has succeeding in stopping NN being taken up at any truly global policy making/ framing forum, and you know that. > Well, yes. How much ever may I like to, we are just not able to come > off the colonial and post colonial yoke. Dont we still take everything > of worth from the west? > > MM: A typical Parminderism. Someone notes the irony of you claiming > the “the U.S.” is stopping us from discussing an issue that is being > actively discussed in large part because of US domestic politics, and > you transmute that into a claim that everything of worth originates > from the West. > PJS: I repeat, US does try its best that global Internet related public policy issues are not discussed and taken up by globally democratic forums in any manner that could move towards their global democratic resolution. As for your assertion that many of these issues are beign discussed globally "becuase of US domestic politics", this just betrays the symptoms of the very regrettable diseases of seeing the US as the centre of the world that many US policy makers, and policy commentators suffer from. It is not going to be very useful, but still let me repeat - we discuss Internet public policy issues globally becuase they impact us and not becuase ofUS domestic politics... > Apart from US and its corporate allies being the chief instigators for > filtering the debates at the IGF, > > MM: The chief instigators of filtering debates at the IGF are those > who don’t want to disturb the IG status quo, as you know well. But > that camp includes people in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia as > well as “the U.S.” > PJS:Has it not been amply clear that the US political and business establishment leads the pack and is its epicentre.. > I’ve run up against those filters as much as you have, btw, only about > 5 years before you. Ask yourself why I wasn’t asked to be on the IANA > transition panel at either Netmundial or IGF, for example. But I am > from the US. Why didn’t they welcome a fellow imperialist hegemonic > white male? How do you explain this, my friend? > PJS: You are slipping into a rhetoric which has no connection to anything I may have said. > Maybe there are substantive policy differences at stake that cannot be > reduced to 1970s-vintage state-centric worldviews? > PJS: Interesting! Ask Snowden how state-centric the world still is.. That is just one example. > Maybe “the US” is the wrong label to be using to characterize your > enemies? Your whole mentality is still locked into the nation-state > mindset. > PJS: This point will be addressed in my next email, > > The US rules the global Internet, politically and economically . Any > civil society actor whose chief aim is a better distribution of power > (that at least is what civil society used to be) would naturally make > the US as its chief target. > > MM: But redistributing power to whom, and for what purpose? > PJS: To people, for their benefit. > First, it is obvious that you are talking exclusively about a > redistribution of power among nation-states > PJS: Where is it obvious? However, yes nation states are one of the main vehicles of such redistribution, since they are still the primary vehicle of people's democratic representation ( the US constitution’s "we the people..") . And seeking to dismantle this system of democratic representation without building a more democratic one is one of the most important contemporary strategies to check redistribution of power towards the people. > – an approach that is intrinsically hostile to civil society. > PJS: Please expand this.... I think the hostility is to the rule of free unregulated market which is basically rule of big business... It is the latter's increasing power that is hostile to civil society .. > Further, I don’t think a redistribution that, say, strengthens the > Russian or Chinese states is anything to get excited about > PJS:To the extent that it can decrease illegitimate US's political and economic power (heard to the recent BRICS bank, you sure would say it is inherently hostile to 'civil society', right!) . To the extent it may empower the state vis a vis its own people, no.... Two different battles, bot important. > – or haven’t you kept your eyes on what is happening in Hong Kong? > Perhaps you will follow Putin and Xi and blame all the HK unrest of > “the U.S.”? > PJS: Slipping again into unsustainable rhetoric... Since when market fundamentalism has become revolutions friendly... I fully support the HK democratic movement, and so do colleagues inside HK who work with us. BTW, the only comment on the HK unrest I saw in IG lsits was one of Michael Gurstein showing detials of HK's Internet speeds etc and wondering whether it had to do with the protests. The whole multistakeholderist group and the Internet freedom did not utter a word... So, dont create accusations which have no basis... > All part of our attempt to maintain global hegemony. So let’s suppress > freedom and democracy in Hong Kong so we have a better distribution of > power? > PJS: Milton, you need to do better than this. > > I don’t think strengthening the Indian or Turkish or South African > states is such a great idea, either. All of them seem to be more > interested in Internet control than anything else. > Good, you were not able to bring yourself to mention India :) .. Anyway, nation state is a complex reality, and a general one kind of branding versus other may not help. Context matters. Within South Africa, almost all reform movements will be aimed against the state (happens in India and we participate in so many of them.).. At the global level, it is the US political and economic establishment which undoubtedly has the greatest concentration of power and this the greatest threat. In confronting this threat, most developing country governments can be used as allies. > Again I ask you to frame your debate and discourse in terms of > substantive policy choices and not polarized power blocs centered on > nation-states. > Well, I greatly admire the US as a nation of people. My problem is with its political and economic might which is overbearing and a threat to the world. As for substantive policy choices just go to theJust Net Coalition website , and read its Delhi Declaration as well as more than 20 statements made by it in the last 6 months. And if you find another IG group which is clearer and more profuse in offering policy choices let me know. All I have heard most IG groups is just saying over and over again, in with multistakeholder-ism, down with UN... Hardly a portfolio of "substantive policy choices". > > Your mode of discourse is essentially a Cold War mentality, where our > political choices are centered on being for or against the US. > In fact it is entirely post cold war, where the US has become a unipolar political and economic power, with no brakes or constraints, which is leading to an unsustainable concentration of power. The global Internet, born post cold war, is its prime example. Pity that there are so many in the global civil society that side with this greatest concentration of power on the global Internet "against civil society interests" to quote your somewhat flippant phrase. parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Thu Oct 30 22:34:55 2014 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:34:55 +1300 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org>,<038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ujwala.uppaluri at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 01:34:08 2014 From: ujwala.uppaluri at gmail.com (Ujwala Uppaluri) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:04:08 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 Message-ID: Dear All, CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here . Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. Best, Ujwala -- Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 31 02:01:39 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:31:39 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Thanks Ujwala I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in draft new resolution on counterfeit devices. It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate at the edges'. Hope this can be stopped somehow. On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. Thanks for this excellent work and reference parminder On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | > Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org > .www.nludelhi.ac.in > | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 02:11:39 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 02:11:39 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> References: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree with Parminder on "It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate at the edges'. " I do see a trend to expand phone related regulation (as parminder also mentioned) to IP based communication hardware, and that can be a real problem for innovation On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:01 AM, parminder wrote: > Thanks Ujwala > > I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of > "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in draft new > resolution on counterfeit devices. > > It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every > single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be > "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a > pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications > etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate > at the edges'. > > Hope this can be stopped somehow. > > On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India > proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at > http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the > commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. > > Thanks for this excellent work and reference > parminder > > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: > (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . > www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 31 03:28:30 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:28:30 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> Very helpful Ujwala. Parminder, where is the devices issue being discussed? Thanks Anriette On 31/10/2014 07:33, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | > Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org > . > www.nludelhi.ac.in > | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pazval at mail.ru Fri Oct 31 03:27:34 2014 From: pazval at mail.ru (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmlpIFBheml1aw==?=) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:27:34 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance Schools and Fellowship In-Reply-To: References: <6C8D44D3-15F2-40EC-9179-AD7A08916E24@me.com> Message-ID: <1414740454.340917060@f282.i.mail.ru> Please add LLM Program in International Information (Cyber) Law in the Institute of International Relations of taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (Ukraine) http://www.iir.edu.ua/en/education/english_masters_programs/international_information_law/ Kind regards, Andrii Andrii Paziuk Assoc. Professor, PhD CyberPeace Chair project head www.cyberpeace.org.ua Institute of International Relations  Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Laboratory of Internet Governance, the Ukrainian Association of International Law  Member of: ESIL, UAIL, GIGANet, GIPI, ONI-Eurasia, NCUC/NCSG/GNSO/ICANN http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Andrii_Paziuk Publications: http://iir-kiev.academia.edu/AndriiPaziuk Tel: +380504418354   Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:58:50 -0400 от Carolina Rossini : >Diplo Foundation as a major school > >On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:01 PM, "João Carlos R. Caribé" < joao.caribe at me.com > wrote: >>Dears,  >> >>I'm writing an article about how to enter the debate on Internet governance, and I want to relate the major scholarship programs and schools of Internet governance worldwide.  >> >>So far I have:  >> >>Pre IGF  >>LACIGF (LAC)  >>- CGI.Br (Integral)  >>- Lacnic (Partial)  >> >>//Other Regional IGF and they fellowship program >> >>LANIC / LACNOG (LAC)  >>- Lacnic (Partial)  >> >>IGF (Global)  >>- CGI.Br (Integral)  >>- ISOC (??)  >>- APC (??)  >>- NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program  >>- Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program  >> >>ICANN (Global)  >>- Fellowship Program (Integral)  >>- NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program  >> >> >>Schools of Internet Governance  >>- EGI -  CGI.br  -  https://egi.nic.br/  - Brazil  >>- Euro SSGI -  http://www.euro-ssig.eu/  - Europe and the region  >>- South School on Internet Governance -  http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/en/   >>- African School on Internet Governance (APC) -  http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/   >> >>I wanna to gatalog and share this informations, also from other regional IGFs,Internet Governance Schools and other open events on IG.  >> >>The article will be published in Portuguese and English, under Creative Commons, anyone woul copy, share, adapt and translate. >> >> >>Any help will be very welcome.  >>-- >>João Carlos R. Caribé >>Consultor  >>Skype joaocaribe >>(021) 4042 7727  >>(021) 9 8761 1967 >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > >-- >--  >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 anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 31 03:41:19 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:41:19 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org>,<038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> Message-ID: <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> Dear all I am only reading this now. It is excellent.. thanks so much for posting Gabrielle. This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :) Civil society activists in the internet space so much opportunity for productive debate and development of positions because of the polarisation between pro-multistakeholder and pro-multilateral factions when it is clear that current approaches in the multilateral system are failing civil society and failing to support any meaningful reform. Quoting Maina: "I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over." By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international internet-related governance. Anriette On 31/10/2014 04:34, joy wrote: > Hi Gabrielle - I meant to say, thanks for sharing this - it's a > compelling report and useful for our work. > Kind regards > > Joy > On 25/10/2014 12:27 a.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. >> >> I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/ >> >> Best, >> >> Gabrielle >> >> >> Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.” >> >> The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people. >> >> A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post. Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum a “ceremonial event”. >> >> It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states. >> >> On October 28, I will present a report to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input. >> >> To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy. >> >> I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over. >> >> As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say. >> >> First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement. >> >> Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily. >> >> The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network, has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India. >> >> Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli, a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care. >> >> Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved. >> >> Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened. >> >> There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies at their events altogether. >> >> No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf. >> >> It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either. >> >> The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings. >> >> When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states. >> >> Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses. >> >> Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR on Twitter. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57 >> To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >> >> You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia >> >> >> Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. … >> Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. >> It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. >> But maybe I’m missing something. >> M >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >> >> >> On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. >> >> >> I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. >> >> I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. >> >> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 03:42:55 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 03:42:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> Message-ID: + 1 on "By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international internet-related governance." On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I am only reading this now. > > It is excellent.. thanks so much for posting Gabrielle. > > This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of > the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through > multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :) > > Civil society activists in the internet space so much opportunity for > productive debate and development of positions because of the polarisation > between pro-multistakeholder and pro-multilateral factions when it is clear > that current approaches in the multilateral system are failing civil > society and failing to support any meaningful reform. > > Quoting Maina: "I am convinced that the traditional approach to > multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people > are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that > multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute > development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape > international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence > these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over." > > By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing > to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international > internet-related governance. > > Anriette > > > > On 31/10/2014 04:34, joy wrote: > > Hi Gabrielle - I meant to say, thanks for sharing this - it's a compelling > report and useful for our work. > Kind regards > > Joy > On 25/10/2014 12:27 a.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: > > Hi all, > > I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. > > I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/ > > Best, > > Gabrielle > > > Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.” > > The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people. > > A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post . Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum a “ceremonial event”. > > It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states. > > On October 28, I will present a report to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input. > > To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy. > > I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over. > > As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say. > > First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception ). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement. > > Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily. > > The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network , has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India. > > Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli , a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care. > > Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved. > > Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened. > > There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies at their events altogether. > > No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf. > > It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either. > > The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings. > > When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states. > > Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses. > > Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR on Twitter. > > > > ________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57 > To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia > > > Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participator > y. … > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > But maybe I’m missing something. > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > > If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. > > > I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. > > I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. > > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.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 > -- -- *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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 03:43:33 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 03:43:33 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> Message-ID: and btw, I am pretty sure I mentioned that before, but a couple of months ago Brazil passed a Law on "social participation in decision making" :-) On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > + 1 on "By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are > failing to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming > international internet-related governance." > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> I am only reading this now. >> >> It is excellent.. thanks so much for posting Gabrielle. >> >> This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of >> the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through >> multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :) >> >> Civil society activists in the internet space so much opportunity for >> productive debate and development of positions because of the polarisation >> between pro-multistakeholder and pro-multilateral factions when it is clear >> that current approaches in the multilateral system are failing civil >> society and failing to support any meaningful reform. >> >> Quoting Maina: "I am convinced that the traditional approach to >> multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people >> are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that >> multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute >> development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape >> international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence >> these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over." >> >> By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing >> to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international >> internet-related governance. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 31/10/2014 04:34, joy wrote: >> >> Hi Gabrielle - I meant to say, thanks for sharing this - it's a >> compelling report and useful for our work. >> Kind regards >> >> Joy >> On 25/10/2014 12:27 a.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. >> >> I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/ >> >> Best, >> >> Gabrielle >> >> >> Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.” >> >> The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people. >> >> A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post . Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum a “ceremonial event”. >> >> It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states. >> >> On October 28, I will present a report to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input. >> >> To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy. >> >> I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over. >> >> As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say. >> >> First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception ). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement. >> >> Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily. >> >> The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network , has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India. >> >> Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli , a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care. >> >> Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved. >> >> Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened. >> >> There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies at their events altogether. >> >> No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf. >> >> It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either. >> >> The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings. >> >> When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states. >> >> Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses. >> >> Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR on Twitter. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57 >> To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >> >> You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia >> >> >> Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participator >> y. … >> Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. >> It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. >> But maybe I’m missing something. >> M >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >> >> >> On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. >> >> >> I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. >> >> I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- >> ````````````````````````````````` >> anriette esterhuysen >> executive director >> association for progressive communications >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.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 >> > > > > -- > -- > *Carolina Rossini * > *Vice President, International Policy* > *Public Knowledge* > *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * > + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini > > -- -- *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 wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 05:16:46 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:16:46 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance Schools and Fellowship In-Reply-To: <6C8D44D3-15F2-40EC-9179-AD7A08916E24@me.com> References: <6C8D44D3-15F2-40EC-9179-AD7A08916E24@me.com> Message-ID: Hi João Are you asking only about places with short-term capacity development programs, or also regular university degree programs that do IG? Best Bill > On Oct 31, 2014, at 2:01 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: > > Dears, > > I'm writing an article about how to enter the debate on Internet governance, and I want to relate the major scholarship programs and schools of Internet governance worldwide. > > So far I have: > > Pre IGF > LACIGF (LAC) > - CGI.Br (Integral) > - Lacnic (Partial) > > //Other Regional IGF and they fellowship program > > LANIC / LACNOG (LAC) > - Lacnic (Partial) > > IGF (Global) > - CGI.Br (Integral) > - ISOC (??) > - APC (??) > - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program > - Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program > > ICANN (Global) > - Fellowship Program (Integral) > - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program > > > Schools of Internet Governance > - EGI - CGI.br - https://egi.nic.br/ - Brazil > - Euro SSGI - http://www.euro-ssig.eu/ - Europe and the region > - South School on Internet Governance - http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/en/ > - African School on Internet Governance (APC) - http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ > > I wanna to gatalog and share this informations, also from other regional IGFs,Internet Governance Schools and other open events on IG. > > The article will be published in Portuguese and English, under Creative Commons, anyone woul copy, share, adapt and translate. > > > Any help will be very welcome. > -- > João Carlos R. Caribé > Consultor > Skype joaocaribe > (021) 4042 7727 > (021) 9 8761 1967 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 9 07:55:33 2014 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:55:33 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) In-Reply-To: <5435F496.2000503@varonferraz.com> References: <5434A83E.9070100@apc.org> <5435B164.9010608@apc.org> <5435F496.2000503@varonferraz.com> Message-ID: <026301cfe3b7$ef3a00f0$cdae02d0$@gp-digital.org> Hi all, Joana makes a good point. While the letter needs to be formally submitted today, I would be in favour of leaving it open for endorsements until the Plenipotentiary. That way, we have time to reach out to organisations outside the BestBits network and get broader support. As people may be waking up in Latin America, I’ll wait another hour before sending the letter. After that, we get into late afternoon in Geneva and I’m afraid people won’t be looking at emails anymore. I will keep the group posted on progress so that you know that the letter has gone out. Best, Lea From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon Sent: 09 October 2014 03:36 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) ps. just shared the link for signatures with lists in latam and brazil.. I would suggest to folks from other regions to do the same... Then it would be good to wait a bit (until Thursday night at least?) so we can collect a bit more signatures from a more diverse variety of regions.. my two cents best joana On 08-10-2014 20:13, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Hi all, > > In response to Deborah's question - we will be sending the letter to the ITU tomorrow midday UTC. The letter will remain open for endorsements after that (until tomorrow evening I think), but please note that your organisation won't be included in the list of signatories unless you add your endorsement by noon UTC. > > Apologies for the inconvenience - it is important to send the letter out as soon as we can tomorrow to ensure we have enough time for follow up activities with the Secretariat as well as Member States. > > Best, > Lea > >> On 8 Oct 2014, at 22:49, Deborah Brown wrote: >> Dear all, The letter is now posted on the Best Bits platform for endorsements. http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ I understand that the the letter is meant to go to the ITU on Thursday, but if someone could give a more specific cutoff time for endorsements, that would be helpful. Kind regards, Deborah >>> On 10/8/14 1:44 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>> Great suggestion Deborah - the ITU fluid working group supports >>> this idea. Best Anne >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Deborah Brown >> > wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Anne for this great summary and coordinating this. >>> >>> In addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary General, >>> could we also address it to (or copy) the current deputy Secretary >>> General who is the uncontested candidate to be the next SG? It >>> could be strategic to start engaging him early on and relevant to >>> include him in his current post in any case. >>> >>> Kind regards, Deborah >>> >>>> On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>> Dear friends,____ >>> >>>> __ __ >>> >>>> After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a >>>> fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at >>>> the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a >>>> group of around 25 members of civil society have been >>>> coordinating various activities:____ >>> >>>> • Pre-conference knowledge sharing;____ >>> >>>> • Coordination of specific advocacy efforts;____ >>> >>>> • Organising on the ground civil society activities in >>>> Busan.____ >>> >>>> __ __ >>> >>>> As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group has >>>> developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP >>>> Conference processes. Please find the letter here: >>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . >>> >>> >>>> Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, and >>>> seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process >>>> of consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that >>>> the text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather >>>> than the standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After >>>> this, a final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as >>>> possible, will be available for 24 hours for endorsements. >>> >>> >>>> During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage >>>> members to focus on red lines that would prevent them from >>>> endorsing the letter rather than detailed line by line edits. >>> >>> >>>> This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and >>>> encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate >>>> broader stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This >>>> does not preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at >>>> Member States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the >>>> Conference outcomes. >>> >>>> __ __ >>> >>>> This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary >>>> General/Secretariat later this week, and then to various ITU >>>> delegations as an FYI. >>> >>> >>>> Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the >>>> drafting. >>> >>>> __ __ >>> >>>> In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the >>>> efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. __ >>> >>>> __ __ >>> >>>> Very 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 dave at difference.com.au Fri Oct 31 05:20:54 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:20:54 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0F78A231-7EB1-49D7-BE93-195E49C2E24D@difference.com.au> On 22 Oct 2014, at 9:47 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > Further to Parminder’s comments below. > > I recently published a blogpost (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic model of “governance by and for the people” is in direct conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of “governance by and for stakeholders”. > > I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in such a way is highly simplistic It is always good when we can agree on something, Michael. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From dave at difference.com.au Fri Oct 31 05:57:32 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:57:32 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> References: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree with Parminder. I would go further in that I'm not keen on this being applied to telephones either (which could arguably outlaw devices that can change IMEI. Very glad to hear the 'unauthorized' language has been dropped, but still find it quite problematic. And counterfeit is, as Parminder says, problematic enough. We've just seen a big issue in which a Windows Update was used to deliver an FTDI driver (a chip used in many simple USB peripherals) was delivered that 'bricked' counterfeit chips. While I wouldn't argue against use of IP law to stop counterfeiting (without wishing to dip into that complex issue), the idea that if a device is counterfeit is permissable to attempt to effectively destroy end users private property is outrageous. We need to stop that kind of thinking, that manufacturers intellectual property rights trump consumer rights and property rights. David On 31 Oct 2014, at 2:01 pm, parminder wrote: > Thanks Ujwala > > I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in draft new resolution on counterfeit devices. > > It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate at the edges'. > > Hope this can be stopped somehow. > > On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. > > Thanks for this excellent work and reference > parminder > > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here. >> >> Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. >> >> Best, >> >> Ujwala >> >> -- >> Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow >> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From kichango at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 06:44:58 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:44:58 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: References: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:57 AM, David Cake wrote: > > While I wouldn't argue against use of IP law to stop counterfeiting > (without wishing to dip into that complex issue), the idea that if a device > is counterfeit is permissable to attempt to effectively destroy end users > private property is outrageous. We need to stop that kind of thinking, that > manufacturers intellectual property rights trump consumer rights and > property rights. > Yes, it is already problematic enough that some digital services still seem to be predicated on the presumption that the user will always live in the same place, making it excessively difficult for him or her to use the service while connecting from a place they are not known to usually live. So much for a global network! Mawaki > > David > > > > > On 31 Oct 2014, at 2:01 pm, parminder wrote: > > Thanks Ujwala > > I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of > "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in draft new > resolution on counterfeit devices. > > It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every > single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be > "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a > pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications > etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate > at the edges'. > > Hope this can be stopped somehow. > > On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India > proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at > http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the > commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. > > Thanks for this excellent work and reference > parminder > > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: > (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . > www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 08:47:12 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:47:12 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-posting by adding the IGC) "This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :)" Following from Anriette I would suggest again that these discussions might make a lot more progress towards consensus if we didn't use "the MS term" either. It is obviously possible to do without it. Deirdre On 31 October 2014 03:41, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I am only reading this now. > > It is excellent.. thanks so much for posting Gabrielle. > > This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of > the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through > multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :) > > Civil society activists in the internet space so much opportunity for > productive debate and development of positions because of the polarisation > between pro-multistakeholder and pro-multilateral factions when it is clear > that current approaches in the multilateral system are failing civil > society and failing to support any meaningful reform. > > Quoting Maina: "I am convinced that the traditional approach to > multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people > are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that > multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute > development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape > international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence > these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over." > > By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing > to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international > internet-related governance. > > Anriette > > > > On 31/10/2014 04:34, joy wrote: > > Hi Gabrielle - I meant to say, thanks for sharing this - it's a compelling > report and useful for our work. > Kind regards > > Joy > On 25/10/2014 12:27 a.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: > > Hi all, > > I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. > > I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/ > > Best, > > Gabrielle > > > Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.” > > The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people. > > A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post . Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum a “ceremonial event”. > > It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states. > > On October 28, I will present a report to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input. > > To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy. > > I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over. > > As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say. > > First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception ). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement. > > Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily. > > The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network , has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India. > > Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli , a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care. > > Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved. > > Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened. > > There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies at their events altogether. > > No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf. > > It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either. > > The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings. > > When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states. > > Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses. > > Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR on Twitter. > > > > ________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57 > To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia > > > Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participator > y. … > Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. > It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. > But maybe I’m missing something. > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: > > If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. > > > I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. > > I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. > > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Fri Oct 31 09:59:49 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:59:49 -0200 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance Schools and Fellowship In-Reply-To: References: <6C8D44D3-15F2-40EC-9179-AD7A08916E24@me.com> Message-ID: Hi William, I had not realized just how broad the field of opportunities for those who want to engage in IG, before getting involved with this article my understanding was that they had "some" opportunities. The core objective of my article will be to provide for the newbie all information they need to join the debate, by learning at IG Schools and/or in person trough any fellowship / scholarship program. For IG School my focus is on short term, but would interesting to say that was some regular university degree focused on it. The initiative to write this article is to break the borders for IG actors, since the majority that use this fellow/scholarship just are already involved on IG. All the time based on my "Bottom Dillema" http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141030_the_bottom_dilemma/ since this I was focused on increase the "bottom" of debate. Now I'm running 3 projects related to it: Net Neutrality for all, Internet Governance for all (both like "for dummies" our first video will be how to teach to your grandmother) and Youth LAC. Thanks for your attention, []s Joao Carlos Caribe Em 31/10/2014, às 07:16, William Drake escreveu: > Hi João > > Are you asking only about places with short-term capacity development programs, or also regular university degree programs that do IG? > > Best > > Bill > >> On Oct 31, 2014, at 2:01 AM, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: >> >> Dears, >> >> I'm writing an article about how to enter the debate on Internet governance, and I want to relate the major scholarship programs and schools of Internet governance worldwide. >> >> So far I have: >> >> Pre IGF >> LACIGF (LAC) >> - CGI.Br (Integral) >> - Lacnic (Partial) >> >> //Other Regional IGF and they fellowship program >> >> LANIC / LACNOG (LAC) >> - Lacnic (Partial) >> >> IGF (Global) >> - CGI.Br (Integral) >> - ISOC (??) >> - APC (??) >> - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program >> - Youth IGF (Childnet) (Europe) - Youth Program >> >> ICANN (Global) >> - Fellowship Program (Integral) >> - NetMission Ambassadors (Asia) - Youth Program >> >> >> Schools of Internet Governance >> - EGI - CGI.br - https://egi.nic.br/ - Brazil >> - Euro SSGI - http://www.euro-ssig.eu/ - Europe and the region >> - South School on Internet Governance - http://www.gobernanzainternet.org/en/ >> - African School on Internet Governance (APC) - http://african-ig-school.events.apc.org/ >> >> I wanna to gatalog and share this informations, also from other regional IGFs,Internet Governance Schools and other open events on IG. >> >> The article will be published in Portuguese and English, under Creative Commons, anyone woul copy, share, adapt and translate. >> >> >> Any help will be very welcome. >> -- >> João Carlos R. Caribé >> Consultor >> Skype joaocaribe >> (021) 4042 7727 >> (021) 9 8761 1967 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 31 11:16:18 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:16:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] ICYMI- What to Watch at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 from Access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5453A7C2.9090108@apc.org> And belated thanks for this too. Compared to WCIT I think civil society has done really substantial research and prep for the plenipotentiary conference. Problem is that it is kind of too late once one gets there. We need to be able to participate in preparatory phases more. But that is what we are asking for ! Anriette On 25/10/2014 14:10, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito wrote: > Dear all, > > ICYMI- Here's Access' Plenipot policy brief, "What to Watch at the ITU > Plenipotentiary Conference 2014," Hope you might find this resource > useful it provides an overview of the top procedural and substantive > concerns to look out for at the Plenipot as well as recommendations > for relevant and productive areas for the ITU to focus its work on in > the coming four years. > > Please feel free to share: > https://www.accessnow.org/page/-/docs/WhattoWatchatPlenipot_2.pdf > > -- > > Best Regards, > > ​ ​ > *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* > Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito > @ekenyanito > PGP: E6BA8DC1 > ​ ​ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Oct 31 11:50:12 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:50:12 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: References: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5453AFB4.2050902@mail.utoronto.ca> +1 This is an extremely important consumer protection issue. I would also note that it has the side effect of obliterating *their *IP rights. My, what a complicated world we live in. Stephanie Perrin On 14-10-31 5:57 AM, David Cake wrote: > I agree with Parminder. I would go further in that I'm not keen on > this being applied to telephones either (which could arguably outlaw > devices that can change IMEI. Very glad to hear the 'unauthorized' > language has been dropped, but still find it quite problematic. > > And counterfeit is, as Parminder says, problematic enough. We've just > seen a big issue in which a Windows Update was used to deliver an FTDI > driver (a chip used in many simple USB peripherals) was delivered that > 'bricked' counterfeit chips. While I wouldn't argue against use of IP > law to stop counterfeiting (without wishing to dip into that complex > issue), the idea that if a device is counterfeit is permissable to > attempt to effectively destroy end users private property is > outrageous. We need to stop that kind of thinking, that manufacturers > intellectual property rights trump consumer rights and property rights. > > David > > > > > On 31 Oct 2014, at 2:01 pm, parminder > wrote: > >> Thanks Ujwala >> >> I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of >> "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in >> draft new resolution on counterfeit devices. >> >> It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every >> single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be >> "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work >> in a pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, >> applications etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as >> they say, 'innovate at the edges'. >> >> Hope this can be stopped somehow. >> >> On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India >> proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the >> commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. >> >> Thanks for this excellent work and reference >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here >>> . >>> >>> Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Ujwala >>> >>> -- >>> Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow >>> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi >>> | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | >>> Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org >>> .www.nludelhi.ac.in >>> | Twitter: @ccgdelhi >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 chinmayiarun at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 13:56:15 2014 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:26:15 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> References: <545325C3.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks very much for this Parminder. We will make sure to update the commentary by Monday evening. I am adding the other CCG fellow, Arun, working (along with Ujwala) on our Internet Governance project to this thread so that he can also see your email and discuss these issues with you in person if necessary at the Plenipot. Best, Chinmayi Chinmayi Arun | Research Director Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 971-770-2630 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @chinmayiarun On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:31 AM, parminder wrote: > Thanks Ujwala > > I think one of the important issue right now is possible addition of > "unauthorised" to "counterfeit" devices (which is bad enough) in draft new > resolution on counterfeit devices. > > It is almost catastrophic wrt FoE and freedom of innovation if every > single device that has to ever employ IP based connectivity has to be > "authorised". What worked for telephones cannot in the same way work in a > pervasive IP environment where the possibilities of devices, applications > etc is near limitless, and one should be able to , as they say, 'innovate > at the edges'. > > Hope this can be stopped somehow. > > On a different note, you have referred two commentaries on the India > proposal. If you also link my email on the subject which is at > http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2014-10/msg00229.html the > commentaries would perhaps be more balanced.. > > Thanks for this excellent work and reference > parminder > > > > On Friday 31 October 2014 11:03 AM, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: > (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . > www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 Oct 31 18:12:16 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:12:16 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] A simple question for JNC members In-Reply-To: <6D4E198A-A805-427C-B112-83C499E2B7EF@difference.com.au> References: <6D4E198A-A805-427C-B112-83C499E2B7EF@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <20141031231216.4c54bd11@quill> Hello David JNC hereby replies to your question as follows: Your question may, as you describe it, be a “simple” one. However what you are asking about is really a difficult topic. We believe that a quite significant amount of innovation in the area of governance models is going to be needed in order to achieve an acceptable solution. In point 18 of our Delhi Declaration (which is the foundational document of JNC; see http://justnetcoalition.org/delhi-declaration ) this is expressed as follows: Globally, there is a severe democratic deficit with regard to Internet governance. It is urgently required to establish appropriate platforms and mechanisms for global governance of the Internet that are democratic and participative. These must be anchored to the UN system, and include innovative methods for ongoing and deep participation of non-governmental actors in policy making processes. Participating non-governmental actors must in turn be subject to appropriate transparency requirements, in particular regarding sources of funding as well as membership and decision-making processes. Also relevant to your question is our recent statement “Governing the global Internet – is the status quo the only option?”, available at http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014_Stmt2.pdf . Further, we are working towards a more well-developed position in this area, and we plan to publish a significant document on this topic in the near future. We thank you for your interest in our work. On behalf of JNC, greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:54:57 +0800 David Cake wrote: > ... what form of international governance do you think should > be used for Internet governance issues, or any other issues for that > matter? Democracy seems to be the guiding principle here, and it > seems clear you only consider direct or representative democratic > principles valid, rather than the 'decisions are made by those who > show up' nature of most MS fora. > > If that is the issue, then exiting multi-lateral fora, such as the > ITU, which obviously allow equal voting from nations with extremely > undemocratic political systems, such as China, KSA, etc. would seem > to be very problematic. And that is before you consider issues such > as whether even the way in which representatives are appointed even > by democratic nations is truly democratic - often technical > representatives may be employees of state or private enterprises, for > example. And besides, these fora rely on consensus anyway, which > seems to be undemocratic in JNC thinking unless we are effectively > getting consensus of the entire populace. And multi-lateral > institutions have a far worse record for excluding the general > populace, excluding protest and activism, etc than multi-stakeholder > ones do (indeed, the de facto position is that many MS institutions > admit literally anyone, while most multi-lateral institutions by > default exclude almost everyone, admitting only those authorised by > their state). > > Multi-lateral negotiations between even between only democratic > nations seem problematic too, as examples such as the TTPA, TTIP, etc > are closed, secretive, and disliked and considered undemocratic by > apparently everybody, including JNC members. It could, of course, be > claimed that while those examples are bad, some theoretical better > multi-lateral process restricted to democratic nations might be good > - but unless some clear articulation of what this better process > would, and how it could be realistically achieved, is made, this is > just the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - every example of negotiations > between democratic nations that is closed, secretive, exclusionary, > and undemocratic is somehow just an aberration that doesn't undermine > the theory. > > So, is the JNC position only a critique of existing government forms, > or is there an form of transnational governance that would actually > satisfy the principles they espouse? Is this form of transnational > governance an existing one, or is it something that exists only in > theoretical terms? What is it? Could you describe examples of > transnational governance fora that do, or could, satisfy, or come > close to satisfying, JNC principles? > > [and no, Michael, "I wrote about that on my blog somewhere" is not > really a good answer to this question (or any other question)] > > I ask from genuine interest. I certainly feel that current MS > organisations are far from perfect, and could certainly do with > improvement. But the JNC criticisms of MSism seem largely as if they > would make things worse (e.g. the main criticism of MSism seems to be > that commercial orgenisations participate, but this criticism > directly applied to MS processes would seem to be call to make such > processes exclusionary rather than open, which seems a terrible > idea). In general, some JNC criticisms of MSIsm point out some areas > in which I feel MSism could certainly be improved, such as how to > genuinely broaden participation, but in as far as some of the > principles seem contradictory, I'm sceptical as to whether any actual > form of governance could satisfy them better than an improved version > of MSism. > > Regards > > David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 31 19:17:29 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 08:17:29 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> Message-ID: <54541889.2030709@acm.org> Hi, The problem is that no matter how one tries to finesse it, it would be seen as CS abandoning the model. The word itself is not the issue, it is only the symbol that those who want to attack the participatory democratic movement attack instead of improving it. It is the means those who want to exclude one stakeholder or other take. I understand that there are those in business that want to exclude CS. They too attack the word. I believe those who stop using the term, surrender the ideal. You should see the vehemence that some at Plenipot use against the term. Those who want no one other than the despotic leaders of their nations to rule the Internet. It is these people we would be be allying ourselves with if we abandoned the term multistakeholder. avri On 31-Oct-14 21:47, Deirdre Williams wrote: > (Apologies for cross-posting by adding the IGC) > > "This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of > the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through > multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :)" > > Following from Anriette I would suggest again that these discussions might > make a lot more progress towards consensus if we didn't use "the MS term" > either. It is obviously possible to do without it. > > Deirdre > > > On 31 October 2014 03:41, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> I am only reading this now. >> >> It is excellent.. thanks so much for posting Gabrielle. >> >> This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of >> the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through >> multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :) >> >> Civil society activists in the internet space so much opportunity for >> productive debate and development of positions because of the polarisation >> between pro-multistakeholder and pro-multilateral factions when it is clear >> that current approaches in the multilateral system are failing civil >> society and failing to support any meaningful reform. >> >> Quoting Maina: "I am convinced that the traditional approach to >> multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people >> are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that >> multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute >> development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape >> international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence >> these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over." >> >> By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing >> to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international >> internet-related governance. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 31/10/2014 04:34, joy wrote: >> >> Hi Gabrielle - I meant to say, thanks for sharing this - it's a compelling >> report and useful for our work. >> Kind regards >> >> Joy >> On 25/10/2014 12:27 a.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. >> >> I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/ >> >> Best, >> >> Gabrielle >> >> >> Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.” >> >> The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people. >> >> A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post . Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum a “ceremonial event”. >> >> It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states. >> >> On October 28, I will present a report to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input. >> >> To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy. >> >> I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over. >> >> As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say. >> >> First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception ). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement. >> >> Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily. >> >> The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network , has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India. >> >> Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli , a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care. >> >> Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved. >> >> Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened. >> >> There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies at their events altogether. >> >> No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf. >> >> It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either. >> >> The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings. >> >> When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states. >> >> Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses. >> >> Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR on Twitter. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57 >> To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >> >> You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia >> >> >> Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participator >> y. … >> Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. >> It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. >> But maybe I’m missing something. >> M >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >> >> >> On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. >> >> >> I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. >> >> I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- >> ````````````````````````````````` >> anriette esterhuysen >> executive director >> association for progressive communications >> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.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 >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 nashton at consensus.pro Thu Oct 9 08:04:22 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:04:22 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) In-Reply-To: <026301cfe3b7$ef3a00f0$cdae02d0$@gp-digital.org> References: <5434A83E.9070100@apc.org> <5435B164.9010608@apc.org> <5435F496.2000503@varonferraz.com> <026301cfe3b7$ef3a00f0$cdae02d0$@gp-digital.org> Message-ID: <354CF7F2-D1A4-4EB3-9D4C-CC04BF0A3C09@consensus.pro> FWIW, in Geneva it will get read if it arrives by around 16:30 CEDT, otherwise it is best sent at 0900ish tomorrow morning. Also FWIW, if it means the letter will be delivered with a bunch more globally-distributed signatures if sent tomorrow morning, that seems to be worth doing, as there's no real downside. On 9 Oct 2014, at 13:55, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Hi all, > > Joana makes a good point. While the letter needs to be formally submitted today, I would be in favour of leaving it open for endorsements until the Plenipotentiary. That way, we have time to reach out to organisations outside the BestBits network and get broader support. > > As people may be waking up in Latin America, I’ll wait another hour before sending the letter. After that, we get into late afternoon in Geneva and I’m afraid people won’t be looking at emails anymore. I will keep the group posted on progress so that you know that the letter has gone out. > > Best, > Lea > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon > Sent: 09 October 2014 03:36 > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) > > ps. just shared the link for signatures with lists in latam and brazil.. I would suggest to folks from other regions to do the same... Then it would be good to wait a bit (until Thursday night at least?) so we can collect a bit more signatures from a more diverse variety of regions.. > my two cents > best > joana > > On 08-10-2014 20:13, Lea Kaspar wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > > > In response to Deborah's question - we will be sending the > letter to the ITU tomorrow midday UTC. The letter will remain open > for endorsements after that (until tomorrow evening I think), but > please note that your organisation won't be included in the list > of signatories unless you add your endorsement by noon UTC. > > > > > > Apologies for the inconvenience - it is important to send the > letter out as soon as we can tomorrow to ensure we have enough > time for follow up activities with the Secretariat as well as > Member States. > > > > > > Best, > > > Lea > > > > > >> On 8 Oct 2014, at 22:49, Deborah Brown > wrote: > > >> > > Dear all, The letter is now posted on the Best Bits platform for > endorsements. http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ > > I understand that the the letter is meant to go to the ITU on > Thursday, but if someone could give a more specific cutoff time for > endorsements, that would be helpful. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > >>> On 10/8/14 1:44 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >>> Great suggestion Deborah - the ITU fluid working group supports > >>> this idea. Best Anne > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Deborah Brown >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Anne for this great summary and coordinating this. > >>> > >>> In addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary General, > >>> could we also address it to (or copy) the current deputy Secretary > >>> General who is the uncontested candidate to be the next SG? It > >>> could be strategic to start engaging him early on and relevant to > >>> include him in his current post in any case. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, Deborah > >>> > >>>> On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >>>> Dear friends,____ > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a > >>>> fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at > >>>> the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a > >>>> group of around 25 members of civil society have been > >>>> coordinating various activities:____ > >>> > >>>> • Pre-conference knowledge sharing;____ > >>> > >>>> • Coordination of specific advocacy efforts;____ > >>> > >>>> • Organising on the ground civil society activities in > >>>> Busan.____ > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group has > >>>> developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP > >>>> Conference processes. Please find the letter here: > >>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . > >>> > >>> > >>>> Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, and > >>>> seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process > >>>> of consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that > >>>> the text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather > >>>> than the standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After > >>>> this, a final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as > >>>> possible, will be available for 24 hours for endorsements. > >>> > >>> > >>>> During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage > >>>> members to focus on red lines that would prevent them from > >>>> endorsing the letter rather than detailed line by line edits. > >>> > >>> > >>>> This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and > >>>> encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate > >>>> broader stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This > >>>> does not preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at > >>>> Member States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the > >>>> Conference outcomes. > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary > >>>> General/Secretariat later this week, and then to various ITU > >>>> delegations as an FYI. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the > >>>> drafting. > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the > >>>> efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. __ > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> Very 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- 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 > > >> > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Fri Oct 31 19:52:54 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 08:52:54 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54541889.2030709@acm.org> References: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> <005801cfee8f$ebe8a4a0$c3b9ede0$@gmail.com> <012f01cfeebb$bc1ee4b0$345cae10$@gmail.com> <5449583C.7050500@acm.org> <038001cfeefb$8e6c7bf0$ab4573d0$@gmail.com> <5452F54F.7030506@apc.org> <54533D1F.9040106@apc.org> <54541889.2030709@acm.org> Message-ID: +1 As someone on the front line in Geneva I can only reiterate the truth in what Avri says. If the people making these calls were to get what they wanted, believe me, none of us would like what resulted. On 1 Nov 2014, at 08:17, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > The problem is that no matter how one tries to finesse it, it would be seen as CS abandoning the model. > The word itself is not the issue, it is only the symbol that those who want to attack the participatory democratic movement attack instead of improving it. It is the means those who want to exclude one stakeholder or other take. I understand that there are those in business that want to exclude CS. They too attack the word. > > I believe those who stop using the term, surrender the ideal. You should see the vehemence that some at Plenipot use against the term. Those who want no one other than the despotic leaders of their nations to rule the Internet. It is these people we would be be allying ourselves with if we abandoned the term multistakeholder. > > avri > > > > On 31-Oct-14 21:47, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> (Apologies for cross-posting by adding the IGC) >> >> "This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of >> the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through >> multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :)" >> >> Following from Anriette I would suggest again that these discussions might >> make a lot more progress towards consensus if we didn't use "the MS term" >> either. It is obviously possible to do without it. >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 31 October 2014 03:41, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I am only reading this now. >>> >>> It is excellent.. thanks so much for posting Gabrielle. >>> >>> This piece by Maina (who by the way is very internet aware) makes some of >>> the strongest arguments for what some of us are trying to achieve through >>> multistakeholder approaches without using the MS term once :) >>> >>> Civil society activists in the internet space so much opportunity for >>> productive debate and development of positions because of the polarisation >>> between pro-multistakeholder and pro-multilateral factions when it is clear >>> that current approaches in the multilateral system are failing civil >>> society and failing to support any meaningful reform. >>> >>> Quoting Maina: "I am convinced that the traditional approach to >>> multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people >>> are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that >>> multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute >>> development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape >>> international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence >>> these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over." >>> >>> By pursuing the 'either or' approaches common in our space we are failing >>> to create a broad-based civil society movement for reforming international >>> internet-related governance. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> On 31/10/2014 04:34, joy wrote: >>> >>> Hi Gabrielle - I meant to say, thanks for sharing this - it's a compelling >>> report and useful for our work. >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Joy >>> On 25/10/2014 12:27 a.m., Gabrielle Guillemin wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I thought you might be interested in the Maina Kai's thoughts on multilaterism in the 21st century. For those of you who may not be familiar with his work, Maina Kai is UN Special rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association. >>> >>> I have reproduced his blog post below for ease of reference but you can also find it on A19's blog:http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/188/view/ >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gabrielle >>> >>> >>> Earlier this month, officials from more than 50 countries gathered in Indonesia for the Bali Democracy Forum, a multilateral event styled as a venue to promote “the principles of equality, mutual respect and understanding.” >>> >>> The idea behind the Forum is noble. But conspicuously absent were those whom these democratic leaders supposedly represent: the people. >>> >>> A few days before the meeting, Bali police announced that all protests in the area would be banned to “ensure the event runs smoothly”, according to a report in the Jakarta Post . Eight prominent Indonesian civil society organizations later pulled out, calling the Forum>> li-democ >>> racy-forum> a “ceremonial event”. >>> >>> It’s tempting to label Bali an anomaly, but unfortunately, it’s symptomatic of a broader trend within multilateral organizations today – whether at formal bodies like the United Nations or informal alliances such as the Bali Forum. Multilateralism is mired in its mid-20th century origins, dominated by an undemocratic, state-centric approach and tone-deaf to the concerns of people who actually comprise the member states. >>> >>> On October 28, I will present a report to the UN General Assembly arguing that it’s time to address this shortcoming. The thrust of the report is simple: multilateral institutions must democratise themselves by fully respecting the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, both inside their halls and within their spheres of influence. Above all, this means allowing ordinary people effective participation and input. >>> >>> To be clear, my recommendation isn’t simply about boosting civil society’s profile. It’s also about multilaterals preserving their own legitimacy. >>> >>> I am convinced that the traditional approach to multilateralism is doomed to fail in the 21st century, an era where people are more connected, more informed, and more aware of the impact that multilaterals can have upon their lives. Multilaterals institute development projects, spur economic and political reform, help shape international law, and more. Ordinary people need a channel to influence these critical decisions, or their anger and frustration will boil over. >>> >>> As my report demonstrates, multilateral institutions are not doing enough to ensure that people outside the state power structure have their say. >>> >>> First, multilaterals’ engagement strategies are typically weak. Very few give civil society full participation in agenda-setting and decision-making. Access to information policies are spotty, and most institutions lack mechanisms whereby people can file complaints if they feel they have been wronged by multilateral action (the World Bank being one notable exception ). Sectoral equity is an issue as well, with the private sector playing an increasingly dominant role in implementing the global development agenda, often at the expense of civil society involvement. >>> >>> Even those multilaterals that have implemented engagement policies for civil society have often done so clumsily. >>> >>> The UN, for example grants “consultative status” to some NGOs, allowing these organizations to participate in select UN processes – a rare bright spot. But the process of accrediting these NGOs has been dogged by crass politicization. As of April 2014, at least 48 NGOs have seen their applications continually deferred. Perhaps not surprisingly, 46 work on human rights. One of them, the International Dalit Solidarity Network >> es/idsn- >>> news/read/article/idsns-fight-for-un-consultative-status-a-case-of-reprisal-against-a-human-rights-ngo/128/>, has been waiting for accreditation since 2008, having seen its application unilaterally blocked by repetitive questioning from India. >>> >>> Reprisals by states against activists who cooperate with multilateral institutions are another area of grave concern. One of the most noteworthy instances was the case of Cao Shunli , a Chinese activist who was arrested in 2013 just before boarding a flight to attend China’s Universal Periodic Review before the UN. She died in custody, after being denied medical care. >>> >>> Multilateral institutions must react aggressively when such reprisals take place, including by intervening in specific cases and publicly condemning the member state involved. >>> >>> Multilaterals don’t rank much better when it comes to protecting assembly rights, a valuable channel for constructive engagement when properly opened. >>> >>> There have been numerous reported violations to the right of peacefully assembly during multilateral institutions’ summits in recent years, notably those organized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Group of Twenty (G20). At least one – the International Olympic Committee –bans peaceful assemblies at their events altogether. >>> >>> No one is expecting multilaterals to police assemblies themselves, but they do have obligations with respect to how local authorities do so. This starts with setting standards to ensure that states follow international best practices when policing multilaterals’ on their behalf. >>> >>> It’s a fallacy to say that governments already provide “enough” representation for their people at the multilateral level. We don’t eliminate other forms of political participation at the domestic level because people elect representatives, and we shouldn’t do it at the international level either. >>> >>> The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are among the best tools we have to promote pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. These rights satisfy people’s fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And I emphasize that these rights are indeed fundamental – not simply because they are inscribed in the law, but because they speak to something present inside each and every one of us as human beings. >>> >>> When people are denied these rights – whether at the local, national or international level – no good can follow. It is time for multilateralism to fully account for this, by expanding beyond state action alone and including the effective participation of a variety of voices within those states. >>> >>> Multilaterals are undoubtedly citadels of power, but they need not be impenetrable fortresses. >>> >>> Maina Kiai is the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Find out more about the role of the UN Special Rapporteur by visiting the Free Assembly website or following at MainaKiai_UNSR on Twitter. >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] >>> Sent: 23 October 2014 20:57 >>> To: 'Avri Doria'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >>> >>> You can of course a la the Lewis Carroll’s the Queen of Hearts define anything you like as whatever you like but I’m very curious how your reconcile the current practice of MSism with this definition of Participatory Democracy (from Wikipedia >>> >>> >>> Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos ) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participator >>> y. … >>> Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. >>> It seems to me that decision making a la MSism by self-appointed elites (corporates, their governmental allies and whomever else they choose to participate) hardly qualifies as “creat(ing) opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making”. >>> But maybe I’m missing something. >>> M >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:34 PM >>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations >>> >>> >>> On 23-Oct-14 08:20, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance. >>> >>> >>> I haven't read your blog. But I always define multistakeholderism (m17m) as a form of participatory democracy that builds on the representative democracy that some few nations have put into effect as well as the bottom-up organic coming together of stakeholders, who sometime aggregate into stakeholder groups, on a particular theme. I define it as a form of democracy somewhere between basic representative democracy and full direct democracy. >>> >>> I think many other accept some form of the m17m is a form of participatory democracy definition. So the frames of reference are really quite different. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ````````````````````````````````` >>> anriette esterhuysen >>> executive director >>> association for progressive communications >>> po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.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 >>> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 21:53:02 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:53:02 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Informed Consent, Post-Snowden @wilbanks Message-ID: http://del-fi.org/post/101425506916/informed-consent-post-snowden Informed Consent, Post-Snowden We blew our chance to build a data world that truly empowers individuals already with consumer data and surveillance. We screwed it up well and good. We let the argument be that functionality - features, free stuff - is a solid, ethical, and most of all,*normal* trade for data that describes us in intimate detail. We let the companies that create that functionality use that intimate detail to sift our mail for us, to recommend sweaters to us, to share with the surveillance state and watch us. But we haven’t yet blown that chance with health. Health data is frustratingly illiquid , a truth that frustrates so many attempts to bring consumer level functionality to the health care system, especially here in the USA. But the same structural barriers to data liquidity that are so frustrating have given us a gift, the gift of time. Time has revealed exactly how abusive “data liquidity” can be when it’s controlled completely by large corporations, by an app economy that uses design to make us think as little as possible about the tradeoffs involved with our data. If we already had it in health, do you think it’d be any more individually empowering? We have a chance to do it right. We have a chance to build a health system from the inside out around mobile devices, around commodity prices for clinical data , around cheap DNA sequences , around electronic health records owned by the individual rather than the health care Borg. It’s no small irony that we can use the very same devices that have been revealed to relentlessly surveil us without agency to relentlessly surveil ourselves for health and pool that data to advance our collective understanding of health. And it’s going to happen, one way or another. There’s too much money at stake. But the choices that get made in what we measure, and how we measure, encode our politics. We can measure depression with the secondary measure of movement , for example. Do we take in GPS data? If we do, do we measure the latitude and longitude all the time, or the percentage change from a single point over the course of the day. One of those choices is more exploitative than the other. Choosing one is a clear proof of how we think about the individual’s rights. Doing research this way involves risks. Some of those risks we know: disclosure, loss of privacy, risk of re-identification, discrimination, bullying. Some of them we don’t. But clinical study has never been without risk. Informed consent exists because we believe that “normal” people are capable of balancing the risks of a study against its benefits, and exercising their agency to decide to join or not . We can’t transition to a new kind of science based on individual engagement if we don’t agitate for people’s rights to share their data. We won’t be able to do that until we start to loudly and regularly proclaim, basically, that people can - should - must - be trusted to process complex concepts about research and make an informed choice to participate. Right now we run informed consent as a zero sum choice, a form written by a doctor, edited by a lawyer and a committee, no agency at all besides yes or no. The forms are typically long, filled with boilerplate that limits the liability of the organizations involved, and ban re-use of the data. Generally, we allow clinical research to treat the individual involved like a piece of land on which valuable oil sits waiting to be extracted and piped away. That’s what the participant gets to slog through, and it has a predictable impact. That’s unacceptable. We have an entire industry devoted to making complex things engaging , as long as those complex things make it easier to purchase goods and services. We need apply the same design tools towards the illustration of complex concepts like de-identification, risks of data disclosure, and benefits of data sharing and collaborative analysis. We need a visual language for the concepts of informed consent and research. We need technical frameworks that encode the agency of the individual: return results to participants, allow them to connect with the researchers, to connect with other participants. We need new norms and structures that impose obligations on data users: to be good stewards, to respect clinical study as partnership with real people, to be trustable. We can do much of this with good informed consent. Informed consent is a vector into the entire engagement of people in research, and it’s uniquely a vector that helps the open society world compared to the corporate world. And that’s another reason to do not just act on this chance, but to act quickly: if we wait until the health care behemoths get to it, we can expect informed consent to get road-graded down to a one-click. And that’d be a damn shame. (derived in part from a talk given at the Broad Institute yesterday ) -- -- *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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 21:54:36 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:54:36 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Big Data in Graphic Novel Message-ID: just for fun and since is saturday *http://projects.aljazeera.com/2014/terms-of-service/#2 * -- -- *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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 31 22:48:19 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:48:19 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet-related Issues at PP-14 In-Reply-To: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> References: <54533A1E.7030302@apc.org> Message-ID: In the counterfeit resolution. But things are better now and bad language on unauthorized and unique identifiers was taken out or made flexible. The consolidated version as of this morning attached. On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Very helpful Ujwala. Parminder, where is the devices issue being > discussed? > > Thanks > > Anriette > > On 31/10/2014 07:33, Ujwala Uppaluri wrote: > > Dear All, > > CCG has a list of Internet related issues to watch at Plenipot here > > . > > Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. > > Best, > > Ujwala > > -- > Ujwala Uppaluri | Research Fellow > Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi > | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 986-661-9037 | Fax: > (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . > www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi > > > -- > ````````````````````````````````` > anriette esterhuysen > executive director > association for progressive communications > po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.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 > -- -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: S14-PP-141020-DL-0017!R3!MSW-E(2).docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 51158 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 9 08:09:28 2014 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 13:09:28 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) In-Reply-To: <354CF7F2-D1A4-4EB3-9D4C-CC04BF0A3C09@consensus.pro> References: <5434A83E.9070100@apc.org> <5435B164.9010608@apc.org> <5435F496.2000503@varonferraz.com> <026301cfe3b7$ef3a00f0$cdae02d0$@gp-digital.org> <354CF7F2-D1A4-4EB3-9D4C-CC04BF0A3C09@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <027d01cfe3b9$e0ddf050$a299d0f0$@gp-digital.org> Thanks, Nick! To give a bit more info about the timing rationale - apart from getting it in time to the Secretariat, the reason for getting it out today is to get it to the Dutch government before COB. They have offered to mention it in their meeting with SG Toure tomorrow, but for that to happen both parties have to be aware of its existence in advance. Hope that makes sense. Btw, great to see so many groups supporting this initiative. Lea -----Original Message----- From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: 09 October 2014 13:04 To: Lea Kaspar Cc: Joana Varon; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) --Apple-Mail=_0CF9F017-B09F-4410-905A-75209B613219 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_78B67265-CD30-451E-B4CA-EE98D79137C5" --Apple-Mail=_78B67265-CD30-451E-B4CA-EE98D79137C5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 FWIW, in Geneva it will get read if it arrives by around 16:30 CEDT, = otherwise it is best sent at 0900ish tomorrow morning.=20 Also FWIW, if it means the letter will be delivered with a bunch more = globally-distributed signatures if sent tomorrow morning, that seems to = be worth doing, as there's no real downside. On 9 Oct 2014, at 13:55, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Hi all, > =20 > Joana makes a good point. While the letter needs to be formally = submitted today, I would be in favour of leaving it open for = endorsements until the Plenipotentiary. That way, we have time to reach = out to organisations outside the BestBits network and get broader = support. > =20 > As people may be waking up in Latin America, I=92ll wait another hour > = before sending the letter. After that, we get into late afternoon in = Geneva and I=92m afraid people won=92t be looking at emails anymore. I = will keep the group posted on progress so that you know that the letter = has gone out. > =20 > Best, > Lea > =20 > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net = [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon > Sent: 09 October 2014 03:36 > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: = ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, = 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) > =20 > ps. just shared the link for signatures with lists in latam and = brazil.. I would suggest to folks from other regions to do the same... = Then it would be good to wait a bit (until Thursday night at least?) so = we can collect a bit more signatures from a more diverse variety of = regions..=20 > my two cents > best > joana >=20 > On 08-10-2014 20:13, Lea Kaspar wrote: > > Hi all, >=20 > > >=20 > > In response to Deborah's question - we will be sending the > letter to the ITU tomorrow midday UTC. The letter will remain = open > for endorsements after that (until tomorrow evening I think), = but > please note that your organisation won't be included in the list > of signatories unless you add your endorsement by noon UTC. >=20 > > >=20 > > Apologies for the inconvenience - it is important to send the > letter out as soon as we can tomorrow to ensure we have enough > time for follow up activities with the Secretariat as well as > Member States. >=20 > > >=20 > > Best, >=20 > > Lea >=20 > > >=20 > >> On 8 Oct 2014, at 22:49, Deborah Brown > wrote: >=20 > >> >=20 > Dear all, The letter is now posted on the Best Bits platform for >endorsements. http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ >=20 > I understand that the the letter is meant to go to the ITU on >Thursday, but if someone could give a more specific cutoff time for >endorsements, that would be helpful. >=20 > Kind regards, > Deborah >=20 > >>> On 10/8/14 1:44 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >>> Great suggestion Deborah - the ITU fluid working group supports > >>> this idea. Best Anne > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Deborah Brown >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Anne for this great summary and coordinating this. > >>> > >>> In addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary General, > >>> could we also address it to (or copy) the current deputy Secretary > >>> General who is the uncontested candidate to be the next SG? It > >>> could be strategic to start engaging him early on and relevant to > >>> include him in his current post in any case. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, Deborah > >>> > >>>> On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >>>> Dear friends,____ > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a=20 > >>>> fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at the > >>>> upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a > >>>> group of around 25 members of civil society have been > >>>> coordinating various activities:____ > >>> > >>>> =95 Pre-conference knowledge sharing;____ > >>> > >>>> =95 Coordination of specific advocacy efforts;____ > >>> > >>>> =95 Organising on the ground civil society activities in > >>>> Busan.____ > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group > >>>> has=20= > >>>> developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP=20 > >>>> Conference processes. Please find the letter here:=20 > >>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . > >>> > >>> > >>>> Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, > >>>> and=20= > >>>> seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process > >>>> of consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that > >>>> the text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather > >>>> than the standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After > >>>> this, a final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as > >>>> possible, will be available for 24 hours for endorsements. > >>> > >>> > >>>> During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage members > >>>> to focus on red lines that would prevent them from endorsing the > >>>> letter rather than detailed line by line edits. > >>> > >>> > >>>> This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and=20 > >>>> encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate broader > >>>> stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This does not > >>>> preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at Member > >>>> States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the Conference > >>>> outcomes. > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary General/Secretariat > >>>> later this week, and then to various ITU delegations as an FYI. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the=20= > >>>> drafting. > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the=20= > >>>> efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. __ > >>> > >>>> __ __ > >>> > >>>> Very 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=20= > >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:=20 > >>>> 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:=20 > >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net .=20= > >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:=20 > >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US)=20 > >>> @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:=20 > >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your > >>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>=20 > ____________________________________________________________ >=20 > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >=20 > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >=20 > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >=20 > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >=20 > >> >=20 > >> >=20 > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >=20 > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >=20 > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >=20 > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >=20 > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >=20 >=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=_78B67265-CD30-451E-B4CA-EE98D79137C5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 FWIW, = in Geneva it will get read if it arrives by around 16:30 CEDT, otherwise = it is best sent at 0900ish tomorrow = morning. 

Also FWIW, if it means the letter will = be delivered with a bunch more globally-distributed signatures if sent = tomorrow morning, that seems to be worth doing, as there's no real = downside.

On 9 Oct 2014, at 13:55, Lea Kaspar <Lea at gp-digital.org> = wrote:

Hi = all,
 
Joana makes a good point. While the letter needs to = be formally submitted today, I would be in favour of leaving it open for = endorsements until the Plenipotentiary. That way, we have time to reach = out to organisations outside the BestBits network and get broader = support.
 
As people may be waking up in Latin America, I=92ll = wait another hour before sending the letter. After that, we get into = late afternoon in Geneva and I=92m afraid people won=92t be looking at = emails anymore. I will keep the group posted on progress so that you = know that the letter has gone out.
 
Best,
Lea
 
=
      > In response to = Deborah's question - we will be sending the
      letter to the ITU tomorrow = midday UTC. The letter will remain open
      for endorsements = after that (until tomorrow evening I think), but
      please note that your = organisation won't be included in the list
      of signatories unless you = add your endorsement by noon UTC.

      >

=
      > Apologies for the = inconvenience - it is important to send the
      letter out as soon as we = can tomorrow to ensure we have enough
      time for follow up = activities with the Secretariat as well as
      Member = States.

      >

=
      > = Best,

      > = Lea

      >

=
      >> On 8 Oct 2014, at = 22:49, Deborah Brown
      <deborah at apc.org> wrote:

      >>

Dear all, The letter is now = posted on the Best Bits platform for
endorsements. http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/

I = understand that the the letter is meant to go to the ITU on
Thursday, = but if someone could give a more specific cutoff time = for
endorsements, that would be helpful.

Kind = regards,
Deborah

>>> On 10/8/14 1:44 AM, Anne Jellema = wrote:
>>> Great suggestion Deborah - the ITU fluid working = group supports
>>> this idea. Best = Anne
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 = at 4:58 AM, Deborah Brown <deborah at apc.org 
>>> <mailto:deborah at apc.org>> = wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Anne for this great = summary and coordinating this.
>>>
>>> In = addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary = General,
>>> could we also address it to (or copy) the = current deputy Secretary
>>> General who is the uncontested = candidate to be the next SG? It
>>> could be strategic to = start engaging him early on and relevant to
>>> include him = in his current post in any case.
>>>
>>> Kind = regards, Deborah
>>>
>>>> On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, = Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>> Dear = friends,____
>>>
>>>> __ = __
>>>
>>>> After the pre-IGF BestBits = meeting, it was decided to set up a 
>>>> fluid = working group to coordinate civil society engagement = at
>>>> the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. = Since the meeting, a
>>>> group of around  25 = members of civil society have been
>>>> coordinating = various activities:____
>>>
>>>> =95 = Pre-conference knowledge = sharing;____
>>>
>>>> =95 Coordination of = specific advocacy efforts;____
>>>
>>>> =95 = Organising on the ground civil society activities in
>>>> = Busan.____
>>>
>>>> __ = __
>>>
>>>> As part of coordinating specific = advocacy efforts, the group has 
>>>> = developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP 
>>>> = Conference processes. Please find the letter here: 
>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk .
>>>
>>= >
>>>> Due to the need to send the letter out as soon = as possible, and 
>>>> seeing = as the letter has already gone through a lengthy = process
>>>> of consolidation among the group members, we = are requesting that
>>>> the text be open for comments = for a period of 24 hours (rather
>>>> than the standard = 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After
>>>> this, a = final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast = as
>>>> possible, will be available for 24 hours for = endorsements.
>>>
>>>
>>>> During = the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage
>>>> = members to focus on red lines that would prevent them = from
>>>> endorsing the letter rather than detailed line = by line edits.
>>>
>>>
>>>> This = is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and 
>>>> = encourage them to do what is in their power to = facilitate
>>>> broader stakeholder engagement in the = Conference itself. This
>>>> does not preclude any = additional advocacy efforts directed at
>>>> Member = States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the
>>>> = Conference outcomes.
>>>
>>>> __ = __
>>>
>>>> This letter will be sent to the = ITU Secretary
>>>> General/Secretariat later this week, = and then to various ITU
>>>> delegations as an = FYI.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Special thanks = to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the 
>>>> = drafting.
>>>
>>>> __ = __
>>>
>>>> In addition, if anyone else is = interested in contributing to the 
>>>> = efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. = __
>>>
>>>> __ = __
>>>
>>>> Very = best,____
>>>
>>>> = Anne____
>>>
>>>> = __
>>>
>>>
>>>> -- Anne Jellema = CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885
>>>> <tel:%2B1%20202%20684%206885> (US) = @afjellema * * *World Wide Web
>>>> Foundation | 1110 = Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
>>>> 20005, USA = | www.webfoundation.org
>>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org> <http://www.webfoundation.org/> |
>>>> = Twitter: = @webfoundation*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>= ;>
>>>> = ____________________________________________________________ You 
>>>> = received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>= ;> To
>>> unsubscribe or change your
>>>> = settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>= ;
>>>
>>> = ____________________________________________________________ = You
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the = list: 
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. 
>>> To = unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: 
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>= ;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- = 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
>>> <http://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:

      >>   &nb= sp; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.

      >> To unsubscribe or = change your settings, visit:

      >>   &nb= sp; http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

      >>

      >>

      >>
      _____________________________= _______________________________

      >> You received this = message as a subscriber on the list:

      >>   &nb= sp;  bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.

      >> To unsubscribe or = change your settings, visit:

      >>   &nb= sp;  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

= --Apple-Mail=_78B67265-CD30-451E-B4CA-EE98D79137C5-- --Apple-Mail=_0CF9F017-B09F-4410-905A-75209B613219 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 iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJUNnnHAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00uDEL/23/rLGyHH2OcsWGYmEmDYIP 6qLP8aYYBmekFo+ReCzPMwmTeRWyXbHld/iCdi9wsPp6AX4qzXSoelk7tuVAUtsN YTAN7TknrhfTwC508fvVwaKohWm6Q/lVs3HGTLG3gzzSzutZCNa+Tm4Lxny+DYIf 1odHeIKLaBs3qZxI7zHiFF9BfSHJDRSDyhBHWdZL7hsvde+dI/Ur4lhI33C5Ebq7 O4ihD3MdV0FdxnYo0qEwMEu/zz4T694ipGwLpSSwsSKEI7+s4JyMDHcUEDiFLxvp N7sRRu4GZVIy3IECuQxuHH/deWKxJqNrp0ilFL5d/KlM6xWXamzm76Np/K4KBjnZ 12gaL6zOEtXi2mWgzk4Tl3CmSNEazX2KbkBnBxU4EipbH7vPcjEDVxxqn4WElfu6 EeIx1NytCwzZg8TXsbV4Q3XhsSL8hOWi6WO4vgylXjtgcmzMIl1MZuhDjUms0DpI WiwY8qQkfBYKYa0m/F3/C00+BkMKYRM/FWi+wqTjSw== =vEJ0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_0CF9F017-B09F-4410-905A-75209B613219-- From nashton at consensus.pro Thu Oct 9 08:43:52 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:43:52 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) In-Reply-To: <027d01cfe3b9$e0ddf050$a299d0f0$@gp-digital.org> References: <5434A83E.9070100@apc.org> <5435B164.9010608@apc.org> <5435F496.2000503@varonferraz.com> <026301cfe3b7$ef3a00f0$cdae02d0$@gp-digital.org> <354CF7F2-D1A4-4EB3-9D4C-CC04BF0A3C09@consensus.pro> <027d01cfe3b9$e0ddf050$a299d0f0$@gp-digital.org> Message-ID: Aha! Makes sense. On 9 Oct 2014, at 14:09, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Thanks, Nick! > > To give a bit more info about the timing rationale - apart from getting it > in time to the Secretariat, the reason for getting it out today is to get it > to the Dutch government before COB. They have offered to mention it in their > meeting with SG Toure tomorrow, but for that to happen both parties have to > be aware of its existence in advance. Hope that makes sense. > > Btw, great to see so many groups supporting this initiative. > > Lea > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > Sent: 09 October 2014 13:04 > To: Lea Kaspar > Cc: Joana Varon; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU > Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm > EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) > > > --Apple-Mail=_0CF9F017-B09F-4410-905A-75209B613219 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="Apple-Mail=_78B67265-CD30-451E-B4CA-EE98D79137C5" > > > --Apple-Mail=_78B67265-CD30-451E-B4CA-EE98D79137C5 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=windows-1252 > > FWIW, in Geneva it will get read if it arrives by around 16:30 CEDT, = > otherwise it is best sent at 0900ish tomorrow morning.=20 > > Also FWIW, if it means the letter will be delivered with a bunch more = > globally-distributed signatures if sent tomorrow morning, that seems to = be > worth doing, as there's no real downside. > > On 9 Oct 2014, at 13:55, Lea Kaspar wrote: > >> Hi all, >> =20 >> Joana makes a good point. While the letter needs to be formally = > submitted today, I would be in favour of leaving it open for = endorsements > until the Plenipotentiary. That way, we have time to reach = out to > organisations outside the BestBits network and get broader = support. >> =20 >> As people may be waking up in Latin America, I=92ll wait another hour >> = > before sending the letter. After that, we get into late afternoon in = > Geneva and I=92m afraid people won=92t be looking at emails anymore. I = > will keep the group posted on progress so that you know that the letter = > has gone out. >> =20 >> Best, >> Lea >> =20 >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net = > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon >> Sent: 09 October 2014 03:36 >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: = > ITU Plenipot transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, = > 4:00 pm EDT/ 10:00 pm CET) >> =20 >> ps. just shared the link for signatures with lists in latam and = > brazil.. I would suggest to folks from other regions to do the same... = > Then it would be good to wait a bit (until Thursday night at least?) so = we > can collect a bit more signatures from a more diverse variety of = > regions..=20 >> my two cents >> best >> joana >> =20 >> On 08-10-2014 20:13, Lea Kaspar wrote: >>> Hi all, >> =20 >>> >> =20 >>> In response to Deborah's question - we will be sending the >> letter to the ITU tomorrow midday UTC. The letter will remain = > open >> for endorsements after that (until tomorrow evening I think), = > but >> please note that your organisation won't be included in the list >> of signatories unless you add your endorsement by noon UTC. >> =20 >>> >> =20 >>> Apologies for the inconvenience - it is important to send the >> letter out as soon as we can tomorrow to ensure we have enough >> time for follow up activities with the Secretariat as well as >> Member States. >> =20 >>> >> =20 >>> Best, >> =20 >>> Lea >> =20 >>> >> =20 >>>> On 8 Oct 2014, at 22:49, Deborah Brown >> wrote: >> =20 >>>> >> =20 >> Dear all, The letter is now posted on the Best Bits platform for >> endorsements. http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ >> =20 >> I understand that the the letter is meant to go to the ITU on >> Thursday, but if someone could give a more specific cutoff time for >> endorsements, that would be helpful. >> =20 >> Kind regards, >> Deborah >> =20 >>>>> On 10/8/14 1:44 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>> Great suggestion Deborah - the ITU fluid working group supports >>>>> this idea. Best Anne >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Deborah Brown >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Anne for this great summary and coordinating this. >>>>> >>>>> In addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary General, >>>>> could we also address it to (or copy) the current deputy Secretary >>>>> General who is the uncontested candidate to be the next SG? It >>>>> could be strategic to start engaging him early on and relevant to >>>>> include him in his current post in any case. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, Deborah >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: >>>>>> Dear friends,____ >>>>> >>>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>>> After the pre-IGF BestBits meeting, it was decided to set up a=20 >>>>>> fluid working group to coordinate civil society engagement at the >>>>>> upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. Since the meeting, a >>>>>> group of around 25 members of civil society have been >>>>>> coordinating various activities:____ >>>>> >>>>>> =95 Pre-conference knowledge sharing;____ >>>>> >>>>>> =95 Coordination of specific advocacy efforts;____ >>>>> >>>>>> =95 Organising on the ground civil society activities in >>>>>> Busan.____ >>>>> >>>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>>> As part of coordinating specific advocacy efforts, the group >>>>>> has=20= > >>>>>> developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP=20 >>>>>> Conference processes. Please find the letter here:=20 >>>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Due to the need to send the letter out as soon as possible, >>>>>> and=20= > >>>>>> seeing as the letter has already gone through a lengthy process >>>>>> of consolidation among the group members, we are requesting that >>>>>> the text be open for comments for a period of 24 hours (rather >>>>>> than the standard 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After >>>>>> this, a final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast as >>>>>> possible, will be available for 24 hours for endorsements. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> During the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage members >>>>>> to focus on red lines that would prevent them from endorsing the >>>>>> letter rather than detailed line by line edits. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and=20 >>>>>> encourage them to do what is in their power to facilitate broader >>>>>> stakeholder engagement in the Conference itself. This does not >>>>>> preclude any additional advocacy efforts directed at Member >>>>>> States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the Conference >>>>>> outcomes. >>>>> >>>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>>> This letter will be sent to the ITU Secretary General/Secretariat >>>>>> later this week, and then to various ITU delegations as an FYI. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Special thanks to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the=20= > >>>>>> drafting. >>>>> >>>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>>> In addition, if anyone else is interested in contributing to the=20= > >>>>>> efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. __ >>>>> >>>>>> __ __ >>>>> >>>>>> Very 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=20= > >>>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:=20 >>>>>> 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:=20 >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net .=20= > >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:=20 >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US)=20 >>>>> @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:=20 >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your >>>>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> =20 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> =20 >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> =20 >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> =20 >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> =20 >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> =20 >>>> >> =20 >>>> >> =20 >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> =20 >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> =20 >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> =20 >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> =20 >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> =20 >> =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=_78B67265-CD30-451E-B4CA-EE98D79137C5 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Type: text/html; > charset=windows-1252 > > charset=3Dwindows-1252"> -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">FWIW, = > in Geneva it will get read if it arrives by around 16:30 CEDT, otherwise = > it is best sent at 0900ish tomorrow = > morning. 

Also FWIW, if it means the letter will = > be delivered with a bunch more globally-distributed signatures if sent = > tomorrow morning, that seems to be worth doing, as there's no real = > downside.
>
On 9 Oct 2014, at 13:55, Lea Kaspar < href=3D"mailto:Lea at gp-digital.org">Lea at gp-digital.org> = > wrote:

type=3D"cite">
vlink=3D"purple" style=3D"font-family: OpenSans; font-size: 16px; = > font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; = > letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: = > start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; = > widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">
class=3D"WordSection1" style=3D"page: WordSection1;">
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;"> sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Hi = > all,
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: = > rgb(31, 73, 125);"> 
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: = > rgb(31, 73, 125);">Joana makes a good point. While the letter needs to = > be formally submitted today, I would be in favour of leaving it open for = > endorsements until the Plenipotentiary. That way, we have time to reach = > out to organisations outside the BestBits network and get broader = > support.
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: = > rgb(31, 73, 125);"> 
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: = > rgb(31, 73, 125);">As people may be waking up in Latin America, I=92ll = > wait another hour before sending the letter. After that, we get into = > late afternoon in Geneva and I=92m afraid people won=92t be looking at = > emails anymore. I will keep the group posted on progress so that you = > know that the letter has gone out.
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;"> Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> 
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;"> Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, = > 125);">Best,
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> style=3D"font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: = > rgb(31, 73, 125);">Lea
0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;"> sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> 
style=3D"border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, = > 223); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm;">
0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;"> Tahoma, sans-serif; color: windowtext;">From: lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma, = > sans-serif; color: windowtext;"> class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net">bestbits-request at lists= > .bestbits.net [ href=3D"mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net">mailto:bestbits-reques= > t at lists.bestbits.net] class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> On Behalf Of class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> Joana = > Varon
Sent: 09= > October 2014 03:36
To: class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net">bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re:= > [bestbits] Letter now posted for endorsements (was Re: ITU Plenipot = > transparency & participation letter - comments close Weds, 4:00 pm = > EDT/ 10:00 pm CET)
= >
'Times New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> > In response to = > Deborah's question - we will be sending the
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> letter to the ITU tomorrow = > midday UTC. The letter will remain open
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      for endorsements = > after that (until tomorrow evening I think), but
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> please note that your = > organisation won't be included in the list
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> of signatories unless you = > add your endorsement by noon UTC.

style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >

= >
'Times New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> > Apologies for the = > inconvenience - it is important to send the
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> letter out as soon as we = > can tomorrow to ensure we have enough
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> time for follow up = > activities with the Secretariat as well as
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> Member = > States.

font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >

= >
'Times New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> > = > Best,

font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> > = > Lea

font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >

= >
'Times New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >> On 8 Oct 2014, at = > 22:49, Deborah Brown
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"mailto:deborah at apc.org" style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: = > underline;"><deborah at apc.org> class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> wrote:

v>
'Times New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >>

div>
font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Dear all, The letter is now = > posted on the Best Bits platform for
endorsements. class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;">http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/

I = > understand that the the letter is meant to go to the ITU on
Thursday, = > but if someone could give a more specific cutoff time = > for
endorsements, that would be helpful.

Kind = > regards,
Deborah

>>> On 10/8/14 1:44 AM, Anne Jellema = > wrote:
>>> Great suggestion Deborah - the ITU fluid working = > group supports
>>> this idea. Best = > Anne
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 = > at 4:58 AM, Deborah Brown < style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: = > underline;">deborah at apc.org class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>> class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"mailto:deborah at apc.org" style=3D"color: purple; text-decoration: = > underline;"><mailto:deborah at apc.org>> = > wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Anne for this great = > summary and coordinating this.
>>>
>>> In = > addition to addressing this letter the ITU Secretary = > General,
>>> could we also address it to (or copy) the = > current deputy Secretary
>>> General who is the uncontested = > candidate to be the next SG? It
>>> could be strategic to = > start engaging him early on and relevant to
>>> include him = > in his current post in any case.
>>>
>>> Kind = > regards, Deborah
>>>
>>>> On 10/7/14 3:40 PM, = > Anne Jellema wrote:
>>>> Dear = > friends,____
>>>
>>>> __ = > __
>>>
>>>> After the pre-IGF BestBits = > meeting, it was decided to set up a class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>>> fluid = > working group to coordinate civil society engagement = > at
>>>> the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. = > Since the meeting, a
>>>> group of around  25 = > members of civil society have been
>>>> coordinating = > various activities:____
>>>
>>>> =95 = > Pre-conference knowledge = > sharing;____
>>>
>>>> =95 Coordination of = > specific advocacy efforts;____
>>>
>>>> =95 = > Organising on the ground civil society activities in
>>>> = > Busan.____
>>>
>>>> __ = > __
>>>
>>>> As part of coordinating specific = > advocacy efforts, the group has class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>>> = > developed a letter with several specific asks regarding PP class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>>> = > Conference processes. Please find the letter here: class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>>> class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;">https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Z2Rf7Zrxwk class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> .
>>>
>>= > >
>>>> Due to the need to send the letter out as soon = > as possible, and class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>>> seeing = > as the letter has already gone through a lengthy = > process
>>>> of consolidation among the group members, we = > are requesting that
>>>> the text be open for comments = > for a period of 24 hours (rather
>>>> than the standard = > 48), i.e. until 4:00 pm EDT tomorrow. After
>>>> this, a = > final text, which we'll try to pull together as fast = > as
>>>> possible, will be available for 24 hours for = > endorsements.
>>>
>>>
>>>> During = > the 24 hours open for comments, we would encourage
>>>> = > members to focus on red lines that would prevent them = > from
>>>> endorsing the letter rather than detailed line = > by line edits.
>>>
>>>
>>>> This = > is a targeted effort to influence the ITU Secretariat and class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>>> = > encourage them to do what is in their power to = > facilitate
>>>> broader stakeholder engagement in the = > Conference itself. This
>>>> does not preclude any = > additional advocacy efforts directed at
>>>> Member = > States of the ITU, who will, in the end, decide the
>>>> = > Conference outcomes.
>>>
>>>> __ = > __
>>>
>>>> This letter will be sent to the = > ITU Secretary
>>>> General/Secretariat later this week, = > and then to various ITU
>>>> delegations as an = > FYI.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Special thanks = > to Matthew Shears and Lea Kaspar for leading the class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>>> = > drafting.
>>>
>>>> __ = > __
>>>
>>>> In addition, if anyone else is = > interested in contributing to the class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>>> = > efforts of the fluid working group, please drop me a note. = > __
>>>
>>>> __ = > __
>>>
>>>> Very = > best,____
>>>
>>>> = > Anne____
>>>
>>>> = > __
>>>
>>>
>>>> -- Anne Jellema = > CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885
>>>> < href=3D"tel:%2B1%20202%20684%206885" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: underline;">tel:%2B1%20202%20684%206885> (US) = > @afjellema * * *World Wide Web
>>>> Foundation | 1110 = > Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC,
>>>> 20005, USA = > |  href=3D"http://www.webfoundation.org/" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;">www.webfoundation.org
>>>> class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"http://www.webfoundation.org/" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;"><http://www.webfoundation.org> class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"http://www.webfoundation.org/" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;"><http://www.webfoundation.org/> class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> |
>>>> = > Twitter: = > @webfoundation*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>= > ;>
>>>> = > ____________________________________________________________ You class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>>> = > received this message as a subscriber on the list: class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>>> class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: underline;">bestbits at lists.bestbits.net class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;"><mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>= > ;> To
>>> unsubscribe or change your
>>>> = > settings, visit:  href=3D"http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" style=3D"color: = > purple; text-decoration: = > underline;">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>= > ;
>>>
>>> = > ____________________________________________________________ = > You
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the = > list: class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>> class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: underline;">bestbits at lists.bestbits.net class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;"><mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>> To = > unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>> class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" style=3D"color: = > purple; text-decoration: = > underline;">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>= > ;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- = > Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>> @afjellema = > * * *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW,
>>> = > Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"http://www.webfoundation.org/" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;">www.webfoundation.org
>>> class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"http://www.webfoundation.org/" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;"><http://www.webfoundation.org/> class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> | Twitter: = > @webfoundation*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>= > ;>
>>> = > ____________________________________________________________ = > You
>>> received this message as a subscriber on the = > list: class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> 
>>> class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: underline;">bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To = > unsubscribe or change your
>>> settings, visit: class=3D"Apple-converted-space">  href=3D"http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" style=3D"color: = > purple; text-decoration: = > underline;">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits v>
'Times New Roman', serif;">>> 
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> _____________________________= > _______________________________

style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >> You received this = > message as a subscriber on the list:

style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >>   &nb= > sp;  href=3D"mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;">bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.

style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >> To unsubscribe or = > change your settings, visit:

0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >>   &nb= > sp;  href=3D"http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" style=3D"color: = > purple; text-decoration: = > underline;">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

o:p>
font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >>

div>
font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >>

div>
font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >>
style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> _____________________________= > _______________________________

style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >> You received this = > message as a subscriber on the list:

style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >>   &nb= > sp;   href=3D"mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" style=3D"color: purple; = > text-decoration: = > underline;">bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.

style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times = > New Roman', serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >> To unsubscribe or = > change your settings, visit:

class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; = > font-family: 'Times New Roman', = > serif;">      class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> >>   &nb= > sp;   href=3D"http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" style=3D"color: = > purple; text-decoration: = > underline;">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

o:p>

____________________________________________________________= >
You received this message as a subscriber on the = > list:
     href=3D"mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net">bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> .
To unsubscribe or change your settings, = > visit:
     href=3D"http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits= > .net/wws/info/bestbits

> = > > --Apple-Mail=_78B67265-CD30-451E-B4CA-EE98D79137C5-- > > --Apple-Mail=_0CF9F017-B09F-4410-905A-75209B613219 > 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 > > iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJUNnnHAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00uDEL/23/rLGyHH2OcsWGYmEmDYIP > 6qLP8aYYBmekFo+ReCzPMwmTeRWyXbHld/iCdi9wsPp6AX4qzXSoelk7tuVAUtsN > YTAN7TknrhfTwC508fvVwaKohWm6Q/lVs3HGTLG3gzzSzutZCNa+Tm4Lxny+DYIf > 1odHeIKLaBs3qZxI7zHiFF9BfSHJDRSDyhBHWdZL7hsvde+dI/Ur4lhI33C5Ebq7 > O4ihD3MdV0FdxnYo0qEwMEu/zz4T694ipGwLpSSwsSKEI7+s4JyMDHcUEDiFLxvp > N7sRRu4GZVIy3IECuQxuHH/deWKxJqNrp0ilFL5d/KlM6xWXamzm76Np/K4KBjnZ > 12gaL6zOEtXi2mWgzk4Tl3CmSNEazX2KbkBnBxU4EipbH7vPcjEDVxxqn4WElfu6 > EeIx1NytCwzZg8TXsbV4Q3XhsSL8hOWi6WO4vgylXjtgcmzMIl1MZuhDjUms0DpI > WiwY8qQkfBYKYa0m/F3/C00+BkMKYRM/FWi+wqTjSw== > =vEJ0 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --Apple-Mail=_0CF9F017-B09F-4410-905A-75209B613219-- > > -------------- 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 lea at gp-digital.org Thu Oct 9 10:26:33 2014 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:26:33 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Open civil society letter re transparency at ITU Plenipotentiary In-Reply-To: <036001cfe3cb$b025b080$10711180$@gp-digital.org> References: <036001cfe3cb$b025b080$10711180$@gp-digital.org> Message-ID: <036901cfe3cd$07ea2520$17be6f60$@gp-digital.org> Dear all, Find below the email sent to the ITU Secretary General with our letter attached. I have added a footnote in the letter next to the list of signatories pointing to the fact that the letter remains a living document open for endorsements. Thank you to all who have participated in this effort. Please feel free to share this with your contacts and encourage further organisational and individual sign-ons. I will let you know as soon as we hear back! Best, Lea From: Lea Kaspar [mailto:lea at gp-digital.org] Sent: 09 October 2014 15:17 To: sgo at itu.int Cc: preetam.maloor at itu.int Subject: Open civil society letter re transparency at ITU Plenipotentiary Dear Secretary-General Touré, I am writing to share with you an open letter developed by a group of civil society organisations from around the world regarding the upcoming International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan. Please find the letter attached. Over the last two days, the letter has already received 31 organisational and individual endorsements from 18 countries, and it will remain open for endorsements until the Conference. The endorsing groups and individuals call for the ITU to build on its previous commitments to openness and transparency in an effort to work towards an ever more inclusive, transparent and accountable Union. More specifically, the letter lists a number of concrete asks relating to the upcoming Plenipotentiary in Busan. We look forward to your response and continuing dialogue in the run up to and at the Conference. We remain at your disposal for any questions or comments. With Kind Regards, -- Lea Kaspar Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to ITU - Busan Transparency.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 124377 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 11:19:03 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:19:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Open civil society letter re transparency at ITU Plenipotentiary In-Reply-To: <036901cfe3cd$07ea2520$17be6f60$@gp-digital.org> References: <036001cfe3cb$b025b080$10711180$@gp-digital.org> <036901cfe3cd$07ea2520$17be6f60$@gp-digital.org> Message-ID: Hi folks, I can also deliver a copy to the US Del. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all, > > > > Find below the email sent to the ITU Secretary General with our letter > attached. I have added a footnote in the letter next to the list of > signatories pointing to the fact that the letter remains a living document > open for endorsements. Thank you to all who have participated in this > effort. > > > > Please feel free to share this with your contacts and encourage further > organisational and individual sign-ons. > > > > I will let you know as soon as we hear back! > > > > Best, > > Lea > > > > *From:* Lea Kaspar [mailto:lea at gp-digital.org] > *Sent:* 09 October 2014 15:17 > *To:* sgo at itu.int > *Cc:* preetam.maloor at itu.int > *Subject:* Open civil society letter re transparency at ITU > Plenipotentiary > > > > Dear Secretary-General Touré, > > > > I am writing to share with you an open letter developed by a group of > civil society organisations from around the world regarding the upcoming > International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference in > Busan. Please find the letter attached. Over the last two days, the letter > has already received 31 organisational and individual endorsements from 18 > countries, and it will remain open for endorsements until the Conference. > > > > The endorsing groups and individuals call for the ITU to build on its > previous commitments to openness and transparency in an effort to work > towards an ever more inclusive, transparent and accountable Union. More > specifically, the letter lists a number of concrete asks relating to the > upcoming Plenipotentiary in Busan. > > > > We look forward to your response and continuing dialogue in the run up to > and at the Conference. > > > > We remain at your disposal for any questions or comments. > > > > With Kind Regards, > > *--* > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > > 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 > -- -- *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 joao.caribe at me.com Thu Oct 9 12:10:33 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:10:33 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Open civil society letter re transparency at ITU Plenipotentiary In-Reply-To: <036901cfe3cd$07ea2520$17be6f60$@gp-digital.org> References: <036001cfe3cb$b025b080$10711180$@gp-digital.org> <036901cfe3cd$07ea2520$17be6f60$@gp-digital.org> Message-ID: <5A8EC94B-2E1B-4300-89AD-A37B712367C6@me.com> Perfect, I just signed now and share for some peers to join us. Thanks for the great job. Em 09/10/2014, às 11:26, Lea Kaspar escreveu: > Dear all, > > Find below the email sent to the ITU Secretary General with our letter attached. I have added a footnote in the letter next to the list of signatories pointing to the fact that the letter remains a living document open for endorsements. Thank you to all who have participated in this effort. > > Please feel free to share this with your contacts and encourage further organisational and individual sign-ons. > > I will let you know as soon as we hear back! > > Best, > Lea > > From: Lea Kaspar [mailto:lea at gp-digital.org] > Sent: 09 October 2014 15:17 > To: sgo at itu.int > Cc: preetam.maloor at itu.int > Subject: Open civil society letter re transparency at ITU Plenipotentiary > > Dear Secretary-General Touré, > > I am writing to share with you an open letter developed by a group of civil society organisations from around the world regarding the upcoming International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan. Please find the letter attached. Over the last two days, the letter has already received 31 organisational and individual endorsements from 18 countries, and it will remain open for endorsements until the Conference. > > The endorsing groups and individuals call for the ITU to build on its previous commitments to openness and transparency in an effort to work towards an ever more inclusive, transparent and accountable Union. More specifically, the letter lists a number of concrete asks relating to the upcoming Plenipotentiary in Busan. > > We look forward to your response and continuing dialogue in the run up to and at the Conference. > > We remain at your disposal for any questions or comments. > > With Kind Regards, > -- > Lea Kaspar > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > 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 -- João Carlos R. Caribé Consultor Skype joaocaribe (021) 4042 7727 (021) 9 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 14:51:10 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:51:10 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] PK's 2-pager on ITU and Plenipot Message-ID: Available at: https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/international-telecommunication-union-itu-plenipotentiary-conference -- *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 stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Oct 2 12:37:03 2014 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:37:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) In-Reply-To: <542CFA94.1060205@bytesforall.pk> References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org> <000001cfdcd5$634e89f0$29eb9dd0$@IGFPAK.org> <542CFA94.1060205@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: <542D7F2F.2010603@mail.utoronto.ca> I am in the "others" category....and I think he would be great!! Strongly support Byoungil Oh. Stephanie Perrin On 2014-10-02, 3:11, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Jeremy and colleagues, > > Several CSOs in Asia including FMA (Philippines), Open Institute > (Cambodia), BFES (Bangladesh), Bytes for All (Pakistan) are nominating > and supporting Byoungil Oh of Jinbonet, Korea for the MAG. > > We strongly believe that he makes a great candidate for this important > job. > > We are seeking endorsement of his candidature from Best Bits, APC and > others. > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > > > > > > > From: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy > Malcolm Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 2:03 PM To: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society > representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) So > far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the > process: * Avri Doria * Lea Kaspar * John Dada * Matthew Shears * > Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Before we close on September 30 this is a last > call for any final nominations. Can I also please ask those who > haven't already done so to send (me, or the list) a statement > addressing the criteria? Thanks. On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy > Malcolm wrote: This is a call for nominations for > civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory > group (MAG). This nomination process in 2014 will be run across > several civil society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, > Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate > through any of the above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday, > September 30 If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been > nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email > to jmalcolm at eff.org. Please include in your > nomination, the nominee's name, country of residence and nationality, > and gender. Please also specifically address each of the selection > criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee > meets each of the individual selection criteria. CRITERIA * Past > record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on > internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on > behalf of public interest concerns. * Willingness and commitment to > consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those > focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. > * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. * Willing, > available and able to participate effectively and constructively in > the MAG deliberations. Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement > should also follow this process. Nominations must close on Tuesday, > September 30. The list of candidates endorsed by CSCG will be > published no later than October 16. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 > > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com Thu Oct 9 16:50:57 2014 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 20:50:57 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] PK's 2-pager on ITU and Plenipot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Carolina for sharing. It is short and succinct. Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:51:10 -0400 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com To: redlatam at lists.accessnow.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] PK's 2-pager on ITU and Plenipot Available at: https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/international-telecommunication-union-itu-plenipotentiary-conference -- Carolina Rossini Vice President, International PolicyPublic Knowledgehttp://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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 17:04:04 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 17:04:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Need Help - Africa, Arab reg and Asia - ITU Transparency Statement Message-ID: Dear folks, It seems CITEL (Americas) and Europe are supporting better access to ITU documents and meetings. However, it seems the Africans, Arab states and Asian countries are not clear regarding their position. So, it would be great for folks from these regions to try to deliver the statement that went live today to delegations in those regions. Thank you, http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ and PK press-release: https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/press-release/public-knowledge-joins-open-letter-to-itu-to-increase-transparency Regions: Asia Pacific Telecommunity (APT) > http://www.apt.int/APTAPG Europe > http://www.cept.org/ecc/groups/ecc/cpg Commonwealth > http://www.en.rcc.org.ru CITEL > http://www.citel.oas.org ARAB SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT GROUP (ASMG) > HTTP://ASMG.AE/ 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 17:05:37 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 17:05:37 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] PK's 2-pager on ITU and Plenipot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is part of a PK effort to provide resources for advocates, both in US and beyond - the full list at https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/ On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > Thanks Carolina for sharing. It is short and succinct. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:51:10 -0400 > From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com > To: redlatam at lists.accessnow.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [bestbits] PK's 2-pager on ITU and Plenipot > > > Available at: > > > https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/international-telecommunication-union-itu-plenipotentiary-conference > > > > -- > *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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Oct 10 08:53:47 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:23:47 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] PK's 2-pager on ITU and Plenipot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5437D6DB.2090406@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 October 2014 12:21 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Available at: > > https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/international-telecommunication-union-itu-plenipotentiary-conference > Carolina, So what the Public Knowledge is basically saying is that the ITU should practically do nothing, more or less. I mean I saw nothing in this statement about what it should actually do given that the plenipotentiary is the occasion on which the ITU revisits its complete work program. Well yes there is something about WTDC working groups but no clarity about what exactly they can and should do. For instance, the very formation of BestBits was informed by the need for a "positive agenda". Where is a positive agenda ever? After all, in a time of ICTs driven global social revolution/ transformation there must be something to do in the communication, ICTs and Internet space. What should ITU do about this new situation to make sure that things serve global public interest, and if the ITU is to be doing little or nothing, who should be doing it. Not only in your submission but also elsewhere (it seems to be happening all together), I see a creeping assertion that multistakeholder "decision making" should extend beyond technical areas to substantive Internet-related public policy making areas of many different kinds. Please do let me know if I am wrong in this interpretation, which in fact comes quite clearly in your submission. You say ITU should not be exploring a treaty on cyber-security, which I would suppose people would agree is urgently needed in this period of extreme cyber insecurity... So, if ITU should not do the work towards such a treaty, who do you think should do it? The UN's first committee working on security issues, which has done some work on cyber-security? Or are you proposing a multistakeholder body should do such a treaty, in which case too please do put forward your proposal.. These are serious issues of Internet governance today, and should be discussed thoroughly.... Just telling the ITU to open up all its documents but then really to do nothing really substantive does not appear to me to an adequate response to where the world stands vis a vis the Internet and its democratic governance. parminder PS: I cc ed two other elists bec this is an important matter deserving a good discussion . > > > -- > /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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 12:46:24 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:46:24 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] CCIA on ITU Message-ID: https://www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Joint-Statement-ITU-Plenipotentiary-Conference1.pdf -- -- *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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 12:48:50 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:48:50 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ISOC views on ITU Message-ID: http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/toward-collaborative-internet-development -- *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 nashton at consensus.pro Fri Oct 10 12:55:10 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:55:10 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] CCIA on ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To be fair, this is really a joint statement of CCIA, ECTA, CDT, EuroISPA and DigitalEurope On 10 Oct 2014, at 18:46, Carolina Rossini wrote: > https://www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Joint-Statement-ITU-Plenipotentiary-Conference1.pdf > > -- > -- > 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: -------------- 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 lists at digitaldissidents.org Fri Oct 10 13:57:16 2014 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:57:16 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] ICAN & Human Rights - Session Wednesday Oct 15 - 12:15 - 13:45 In-Reply-To: <6A0E017DCDD67B4F9566E1578A420C3F6180DB8D@V-Linguistix02.key.coe.int> References: <6A0E017DCDD67B4F9566E1578A420C3F6180DB8D@V-Linguistix02.key.coe.int> Message-ID: <54381DFC.7090104@digitaldissidents.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Dear all, I hope this email finds you well. Coming Wednesday October 15 at ICANN LA there will be a open cross-constituency meeting on ICANN and Human Rights. On of the inputs for the discussion is the (updated) report by the Council of Europe on ICANN's procedures and policies in the light of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values. It would be great if you could participate. Best, Niels - -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUOB38AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp+GkH/0whurtbfP8Lsw+DtHw7fwmp vhmgWmljxk1WQeN6BszWaB4F0ndLele3LbosUFuJI9V2BdruDpM5CoGZOZwvUqxK 4hcZvS/RvzP2Vf0t1pSr3eem26UxugoEXsa3VvLbljnQiTcI3iyyLuh0GC8/i/kc nAyLAnLejUwgqkS6np5lqJ+0my35w7uGUQduK/IOOjtsrynKscBYRkRm66xVzTtF AaUFvsMON2Ek9kJ33sfvdlTMc6tf6uYw3iEpMFv16rMQ5fIE/zF2oZuI9XCUNPPL cHX2Ha9urQ/B0AlZGTR3KkeapOGa/MMpFM1n7Dnm6FMoQt6pdtLlSHiio7idsQs= =ZChf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DGI_2014_12E Report ICANN and Human Rights updated 4 Oct 2014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 542899 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20141007 draft Flyer community HR discussion ICANN51 v2.1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 41420 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DGI_2014_12E Report ICANN and Human Rights updated 4 Oct 2014.pdf.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 287 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20141007 draft Flyer community HR discussion ICANN51 v2.1.pdf.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 287 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Fri Oct 10 17:33:41 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:33:41 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> Message-ID: <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. As you know, CSCG is a "??coalition of coalitions"?? of the major civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations. In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society representatives were ending their terms this year -?? an unusually high number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as outlined below. We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG members. *1.* *Sunil Abraham*(India) *2.* *Renata Avila*(Guatemala) *3.* *Oh Byoungil*(South Korea) *4.* *John Dada*(Nigeria) *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). *8.* *Jak SM Kee*(Malaysia). *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) *10.* *Virginia Paque*(Venezuela) We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society representatives. In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society. Sincerely *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications representative Ian Peter, Independent Chair Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group -?? brief descriptions* · Association for Progressive Communications, an international membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and open internet. · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance. · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members in 120 countries · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diploâ??s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically address emerging internet governance issues. · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural interests. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ nomcom01 mailing list nomcom01 at internetgov-cs.org http://internetgov-cs.org/mailman/listinfo/nomcom01 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sat Oct 11 04:54:23 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 14:24:23 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG for coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong representation of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. It is really heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong yet varied list of names, and do so in unison. Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the MAG over the years. You've been wonderful. Warm regards, Anja On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is > pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil > society representation on MAG 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major civil > society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated > areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making > civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations > within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their > individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for > endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names > short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups > working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively > on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS > networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where > appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and > constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the > advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society > representatives were ending their terms this year -€“ an unusually high > number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new > members as outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil > society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full > application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG > members. > > *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) > > *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) > > *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) > > *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) > > *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) > > *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) > > *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). > > *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). > > *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) > > *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms > have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose > term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima > to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the > continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the > continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only > remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In > doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are > civil society representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of > very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in > its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite > their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, > should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional > representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very > pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society > people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to > discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF > Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we > thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise > and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to > represent civil society. > > > > Sincerely > > > > *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications > representative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee > discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she > intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not > participate in the Nominating Committee. > > > > *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination > Group -€“ brief descriptions* > > · Association for Progressive Communications, an international > membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to > empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy > and affordable access to a free and open internet. > > · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across > the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and > joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil > society interests in Internet governance. > > · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members > in 120 countries > > · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants > from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage > effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over > 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. > > · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 > organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically > address emerging internet governance issues. > > · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with > specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. > > · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of > more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop > Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. > NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy > including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural > interests. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 shahzad at bytesforall.pk Fri Oct 3 00:28:53 2014 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 09:28:53 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) In-Reply-To: <542D7F2F.2010603@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org> <000001cfdcd5$634e89f0$29eb9dd0$@IGFPAK.org> <542CFA94.1060205@bytesforall.pk> <542D7F2F.2010603@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <542E2605.6000207@bytesforall.pk> Thanks Stephanie, thanks everyone, ...and I believe that Jinbonet and Byoung-il's great work in South Korea need much more recognition as there is a lot to be learned from and replicated elsewhere in the world. They are among most credible CSOs in Asia region with years of experience and engagement with ICT Policy and Internet Governance. Best wishes and regards Shahzad On 10/2/14 9:37 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I am in the "others" category....and I think he would be great!! > Strongly support Byoungil Oh. > Stephanie Perrin > On 2014-10-02, 3:11, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> Dear Jeremy and colleagues, >> >> Several CSOs in Asia including FMA (Philippines), Open Institute >> (Cambodia), BFES (Bangladesh), Bytes for All (Pakistan) are >> nominating and supporting Byoungil Oh of Jinbonet, Korea for the MAG. >> >> We strongly believe that he makes a great candidate for this >> important job. >> >> We are seeking endorsement of his candidature from Best Bits, APC and >> others. >> >> Best wishes and regards >> Shahzad >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ >> >> mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy >> Malcolm Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 2:03 PM To: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society >> representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) So >> far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into the >> process: * Avri Doria * Lea Kaspar * John Dada * Matthew Shears * >> Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Before we close on September 30 this is a >> last call for any final nominations. Can I also please ask those who >> haven't already done so to send (me, or the list) a statement >> addressing the criteria? Thanks. On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy >> Malcolm wrote: This is a call for nominations for >> civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory >> group (MAG). This nomination process in 2014 will be run across >> several civil society coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, >> Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net Coalition. You are welcome to nominate >> through any of the above groups. Nominations close on Tuesday, >> September 30 If you wish to nominate via Best Bits, or you have been >> nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on list or by email >> to jmalcolm at eff.org. Please include in your >> nomination, the nominee's name, country of residence and nationality, >> and gender. Please also specifically address each of the selection >> criteria below, giving us examples and evidence of how the nominee >> meets each of the individual selection criteria. CRITERIA * Past >> record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working >> on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on >> behalf of public interest concerns. * Willingness and commitment to >> consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those >> focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. >> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. * Willing, >> available and able to participate effectively and constructively in >> the MAG deliberations. Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement >> should also follow this process. Nominations must close on Tuesday, >> September 30. The list of candidates endorsed by CSCG will be >> published no later than October 16. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> -- >> Shahzad Ahmad >> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >> @bytesforall | @sirkup >> Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 >> >> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 -- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Sat Oct 11 05:22:27 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 11:22:27 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: +1 to what Anja says! 2014-10-11 10:54 GMT+02:00 Anja Kovacs : > This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! > > Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG for > coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. > > Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If only we > can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's > recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong representation > of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. It is really > heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong yet varied list of > names, and do so in unison. > > Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society > representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the MAG over > the years. You've been wonderful. > > Warm regards, > Anja > > > On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is >> pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil >> society representation on MAG 2015. >> >> As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major civil >> society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated >> areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a >> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making >> civil society appointments to outside bodies. >> >> *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* >> >> After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations >> within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their >> individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for >> endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names >> short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. >> >> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups >> working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively >> on behalf of public interest concerns. >> >> 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS >> networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where >> appropriate) on MAG discussions. >> >> 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >> >> 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >> constructively in the MAG deliberations. >> >> >> >> In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the >> advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society >> representatives were ending their terms this year -€“ an unusually high >> number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new >> members as outlined below. >> >> We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil >> society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full >> application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG >> members. >> >> *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) >> >> *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) >> >> *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) >> >> *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) >> >> *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) >> >> *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) >> >> *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). >> >> *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). >> >> *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) >> >> *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) >> >> We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms >> have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose >> term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima >> to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the >> continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the >> continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only >> remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In >> doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are >> civil society representatives. >> >> In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of >> very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in >> its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite >> their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, >> should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional >> representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very >> pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society >> people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. >> >> >> >> We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to >> discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF >> Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we >> thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise >> and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to >> represent civil society. >> >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* >> >> Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >> >> Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >> >> Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >> >> Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications >> representative >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >> >> Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating >> Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria >> developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana >> (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. >> >> >> >> *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination >> Group -€“ brief descriptions* >> >> · Association for Progressive Communications, an international >> membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to >> empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy >> and affordable access to a free and open internet. >> >> · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from >> across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual >> and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared >> civil society interests in Internet governance. >> >> · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 >> members in 120 countries >> >> · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants >> from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage >> effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over >> 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. >> >> · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 >> organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically >> address emerging internet governance issues. >> >> · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with >> specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. >> >> · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of >> more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop >> Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. >> NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy >> including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural >> interests. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Deutsche UN Sektion ∙ Internet Governance Forum Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Oct 11 05:29:45 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 11:29:45 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: <5438F889.3080503@wzb.eu> +1 jeanette Am 11.10.14 11:22, schrieb Lorena Jaume-Palasi: > +1 to what Anja says! > > 2014-10-11 10:54 GMT+02:00 Anja Kovacs >: > > This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! > > Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG > for coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. > > Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If > only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's > recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong > representation of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. > It is really heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong > yet varied list of names, and do so in unison. > > Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society > representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the > MAG over the years. You've been wonderful. > > Warm regards, > Anja > > > On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) > is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as > regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major > civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena > and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working > together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and > conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to > outside bodies. > > *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for > Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the > names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would > be further considered for endorsement.The CSCG Nominating > Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, > with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society > groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking > out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to > CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet > governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and > constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly > considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people > considered to be civil society representatives were ending their > terms this year -€“ an unusually high number on an annual basis. > Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as > outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives > for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to > submit a full application with further details pertaining to > their suitability as MAG members. > > *1.**Sunil Abraham*(India) > > *2.**Renata Avila*(Guatemala) > > *3.**Oh Byoungil*(South Korea) > > *4.**John Dada*(Nigeria) > > *5.**Avri Doria *(USA) > > *6.**Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) > > *7.**Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). > > *8.**Jak SM Kee*(Malaysia). > > *9.**Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) > > *10.**Virginia Paque*(Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three > year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil > society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero > (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent > representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the > continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also > endorse the continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* > (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative > carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are > no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society > representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide > range of very talented civil society representatives it was not > able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for > all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, > and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names > of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in > providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to > provide additional names in confidence of further civil society > people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives > shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our > letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their > nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their > participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that > this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent > civil society. > > Sincerely > > *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive > Communicationsrepresentative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating > Committee discussions before nominations were opened and > criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. > Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the > Nominating Committee. > > *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co > ordination Group -€“ brief descriptions* > > ·Association for Progressive Communications, an international > membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in > using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic > communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and > open internet. > > ·Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across > the world, who come together to share and collaborate on > individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and > other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet > governance. > > ·Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members > in 120 countries > > ·Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants > from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage > effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, > Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from > 163 states. > > ·Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 > organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to > specifically address emerging internet governance issues. > > ·Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with > specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. > > ·Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of > more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who > develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy > development process.NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the > formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, > development, educational, and cultural interests. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > > > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Deutsche UN Sektion ∙ Internet > Governance Forum > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de > ∙Newsletter > > ∙Facebook ∙Twitter ∙Youtube > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From mshears at cdt.org Sat Oct 11 13:17:07 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 10:17:07 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: <5438F889.3080503@wzb.eu> References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> <5438F889.3080503@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <54396613.3030308@cdt.org> + 1 excellent choices! On 10/11/2014 2:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > +1 jeanette > > Am 11.10.14 11:22, schrieb Lorena Jaume-Palasi: >> +1 to what Anja says! >> >> 2014-10-11 10:54 GMT+02:00 Anja Kovacs > >: >> >> This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! >> >> Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG >> for coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. >> >> Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If >> only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's >> recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong >> representation of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. >> It is really heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong >> yet varied list of names, and do so in unison. >> >> Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society >> representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the >> MAG over the years. You've been wonderful. >> >> Warm regards, >> Anja >> >> >> On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: >> >> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) >> is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as >> regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. >> >> As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major >> civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena >> and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working >> together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and >> conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to >> outside bodies. >> >> *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* >> >> After each of our coalition members published a Call for >> Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the >> names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would >> be further considered for endorsement.The CSCG Nominating >> Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, >> with the following criteria. >> >> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society >> groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking >> out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. >> >> 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to >> CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet >> governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. >> >> 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >> >> 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >> constructively in the MAG deliberations. >> >> In considering names, our nominating committee firstly >> considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people >> considered to be civil society representatives were ending their >> terms this year -€“ an unusually high number on an annual basis. >> Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as >> outlined below. >> >> We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives >> for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to >> submit a full application with further details pertaining to >> their suitability as MAG members. >> >> *1.**Sunil Abraham*(India) >> >> *2.**Renata Avila*(Guatemala) >> >> *3.**Oh Byoungil*(South Korea) >> >> *4.**John Dada*(Nigeria) >> >> *5.**Avri Doria *(USA) >> >> *6.**Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) >> >> *7.**Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). >> >> *8.**Jak SM Kee*(Malaysia). >> >> *9.**Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) >> >> *10.**Virginia Paque*(Venezuela) >> >> We also considered the remaining representatives whose three >> year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil >> society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero >> (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent >> representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the >> continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also >> endorse the continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* >> (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative >> carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are >> no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society >> representatives. >> >> In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide >> range of very talented civil society representatives it was not >> able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for >> all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, >> and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names >> of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in >> providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to >> provide additional names in confidence of further civil society >> people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 >> MAG. >> >> We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives >> shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our >> letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their >> nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their >> participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that >> this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent >> civil society. >> >> Sincerely >> >> *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* >> >> Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >> >> Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >> >> Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >> >> Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive >> Communicationsrepresentative >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >> >> Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating >> Committee discussions before nominations were opened and >> criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. >> Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the >> Nominating Committee. >> >> *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co >> ordination Group -€“ brief descriptions* >> >> ·Association for Progressive Communications, an international >> membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in >> using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic >> communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and >> open internet. >> >> ·Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across >> the world, who come together to share and collaborate on >> individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and >> other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet >> governance. >> >> ·Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members >> in 120 countries >> >> ·Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants >> from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage >> effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, >> Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from >> 163 states. >> >> ·Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 >> organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to >> specifically address emerging internet governance issues. >> >> ·Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with >> specific interests in democracy, human rights and social >> justice. >> >> ·Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of >> more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who >> develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy >> development process.NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the >> formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, >> development, educational, and cultural interests. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Deutsche UN Sektion ∙ Internet >> Governance Forum >> >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >> >> www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de >> ∙Newsletter >> >> >> ∙Facebook ∙Twitter ∙Youtube >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 fatimacambronero at gmail.com Sat Oct 11 17:50:34 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 18:50:34 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: <54396613.3030308@cdt.org> References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> <5438F889.3080503@wzb.eu> <54396613.3030308@cdt.org> Message-ID: Dear All, Thanks for this information. I also want to thank you all for continuing to support me in this role of MAG member as civil society representative. I will do my best to represent our interests. Congratulations to all the colleagues selected! Best Regards, Fatima 2014-10-11 14:17 GMT-03:00 Matthew Shears : > + 1 excellent choices! > > > On 10/11/2014 2:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > +1 jeanette > > Am 11.10.14 11:22, schrieb Lorena Jaume-Palasi: > > +1 to what Anja says! > > 2014-10-11 10:54 GMT+02:00 Anja Kovacs >: > > This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! > > Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG > for coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. > > Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If > only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's > recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong > representation of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. > It is really heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong > yet varied list of names, and do so in unison. > > Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society > representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the > MAG over the years. You've been wonderful. > > Warm regards, > Anja > > > On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) > is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as > regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a "EURO oecoalition of coalitions"EURO of the major > civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena > and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working > together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and > conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to > outside bodies. > > *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for > Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the > names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would > be further considered for endorsement.The CSCG Nominating > Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, > with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society > groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking > out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to > CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet > governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and > constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly > considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people > considered to be civil society representatives were ending their > terms this year -EURO " an unusually high number on an annual basis. > Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as > outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives > for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to > submit a full application with further details pertaining to > their suitability as MAG members. > > *1.**Sunil Abraham*(India) > > *2.**Renata Avila*(Guatemala) > > *3.**Oh Byoungil*(South Korea) > > *4.**John Dada*(Nigeria) > > *5.**Avri Doria *(USA) > > *6.**Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) > > *7.**Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). > > *8.**Jak SM Kee*(Malaysia). > > *9.**Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) > > *10.**Virginia Paque*(Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three > year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil > society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero > (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent > representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the > continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also > endorse the continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* > (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative > carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are > no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society > representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide > range of very talented civil society representatives it was not > able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for > all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, > and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names > of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in > providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to > provide additional names in confidence of further civil society > people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives > shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our > letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their > nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their > participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that > this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent > civil society. > > Sincerely > > *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive > Communicationsrepresentative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating > Committee discussions before nominations were opened and > criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. > Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the > Nominating Committee. > > *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co > ordination Group -EURO " brief descriptions* > > ·Association for Progressive Communications, an international > membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in > using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic > communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and > open internet. > > ·Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across > the world, who come together to share and collaborate on > individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and > other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet > governance. > > ·Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members > in 120 countries > > ·Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants > from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage > effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, > Diploâ EURO (tm)s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from > 163 states. > > ·Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 > organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to > specifically address emerging internet governance issues. > > ·Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with > specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. > > ·Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of > more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who > develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy > development process.NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the > formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, > development, educational, and cultural interests. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 <%2B91%209899028053> | > @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 > > > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí * Coordinator, Deutsche UN Sektion * Internet > Governance Forum > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de > * www.collaboratory.de > *Newsletter > > > *Facebook *Twitter > *Youtube > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Sun Oct 12 01:21:28 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 07:21:28 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: <543A0FD8.5000302@apc.org> I echo Anja's comments and thank you for the thanks to the outgoing MAG CS members. It is not easy being on the MAG and making a difference :) But some of us did, and, we would not have been able to if not for all the support from civil society people who are not on the MAG but who provide advice and support. So thank you to all those volunteers as well. They know who they are. Anriette On 11/10/2014 11:22, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > +1 to what Anja says! > > 2014-10-11 10:54 GMT+02:00 Anja Kovacs >: > > This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! > > Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG > for coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. > > Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If > only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil > society's recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very > strong representation of civil society's interests in the next > year's MAG. It is really heartening to see that we can put forward > such a strong yet varied list of names, and do so in unison. > > Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society > representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the > MAG over the years. You've been wonderful. > > Warm regards, > Anja > > > On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group > (CSCG) is pleased to be able to inform you of our > recommendations as regards civil society representation on MAG > 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the > major civil society groups involved in the internet governance > arena and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in > working together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society > response and conduit when it comes to making civil society > appointments to outside bodies. > > *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for > Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted > the names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which > would be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG > Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for > final discussion, with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society > groups working on internet governance issues, acting or > speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back > to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet > governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and > constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly > considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people > considered to be civil society representatives were ending > their terms this year -€“ an unusually high number on an > annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new > members as outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives > for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to > submit a full application with further details pertaining to > their suitability as MAG members. > > *1.* *Sunil Abraham*(India) > > *2.* *Renata Avila*(Guatemala) > > *3.* *Oh Byoungil*(South Korea) > > *4.* *John Dada*(Nigeria) > > *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) > > *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) > > *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). > > *8.* *Jak SM Kee*(Malaysia). > > *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) > > *10.* *Virginia Paque*(Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three > year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only > civil society person whose term has not expired is Fatima > Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent > representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the > continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also > endorse the continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* > (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative > carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there > are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society > representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide > range of very talented civil society representatives it was > not able to include in its recommendations. We are very > thankful for all the applicants, despite their making our job > much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF > require names of suitable and accomplished additional > representatives in providing overall regional balance, we > would be very pleased to provide additional names in > confidence of further civil society people who could make an > outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives > shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our > letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their > nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their > participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe > that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to > represent civil society. > > > > Sincerely > > > > *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive > Communications representative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from > Nominating Committee discussions before nominations were > opened and criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a > candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate > in the Nominating Committee. > > > > *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co > ordination Group -€“ brief descriptions* > > · Association for Progressive Communications, an > international membership-based network founded in 1990 who > work together in using ICTs to empower and support others to > build strategic communities and promote easy and affordable > access to a free and open internet. > > · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations > from across the world, who come together to share and > collaborate on individual and joint initiatives in support of > human rights and other broadly shared civil society interests > in Internet governance. > > · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over > 1000 members in 120 countries > > · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting > participants from small and developing states to build the > capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and > diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity > Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 > professionals and activists from 163 states. > > · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with > over 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 > to specifically address emerging internet governance issues. > > · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global > coalition with specific interests in democracy, human rights > and social justice. > > · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an > organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and > individuals who develop Internet policy through participation > in ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes > noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy > including human rights, academic, development, educational, > and cultural interests. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > > > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí ∙ Coordinator, Deutsche UN Sektion ∙ Internet > Governance Forum > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.intgovforum.de ∙ www.collaboratory.de > ∙ Newsletter > ∙ Facebook > ∙ Twitter ∙Youtube > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ````````````````````````````````` anriette esterhuysen executive director association for progressive communications po box 29755, melville, 2109, south africa anriette at apc.org www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Oct 12 02:27:53 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 17:27:53 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba><130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org><28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba><543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: <962E988D41EA446FBBBDA2820FAA7B66@Toshiba> Thanks Anja for the kind words about the nominations – but also for your thanks to the outgoing representatives, which I am glad has been expressed here. I would like to add thanks particularly to Anriette Esterhuysen, Bill Drake, Izumi Aizu, and Vladimir Radunovic, who I think were the most active of those retiring in feeding back to these networks in recent times. Ian Peter From: Anja Kovacs Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:54 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG for coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong representation of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. It is really heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong yet varied list of names, and do so in unison. Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the MAG over the years. You've been wonderful. Warm regards, Anja On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations. In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society representatives were ending their terms this year -€“ an unusually high number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as outlined below. We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG members. 1. Sunil Abraham (India) 2. Renata Avila (Guatemala) 3. Oh Byoungil (South Korea) 4. John Dada (Nigeria) 5. Avri Doria (USA) 6. Stuart Hamilton (United Kingdom) 7. Lea Kaspar (Croatia). 8. Jak SM Kee (Malaysia). 9. Ephraim Percy Kenyanito (Kenya) 10. Virginia Paque (Venezuela) We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the continued involvement of Fatima Cambronero (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society representatives. In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society. Sincerely 2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications representative Ian Peter, Independent Chair Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group -€“ brief descriptions · Association for Progressive Communications, an international membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and open internet. · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance. · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members in 120 countries · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically address emerging internet governance issues. · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural interests. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Sun Oct 12 03:28:21 2014 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:28:21 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: <543A2D95.2030802@bytesforall.pk> +1. A great diverse set of people. The process definitely brought in a few more emerging young leaders in the field of Internet Governance. With support from all of us they will rise and shine. Congratulations everyone for all the hard work on this. Best wishes and regards Shahzad On 10/11/14 1:54 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! > > Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG for > coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. > > Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If only we > can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's > recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong representation > of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. It is really > heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong yet varied list of > names, and do so in unison. > > Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society representatives, > as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the MAG over the years. > You've been wonderful. > > Warm regards, > Anja > > > On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is >> pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil >> society representation on MAG 2015. >> >> As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major civil >> society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated >> areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a >> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making >> civil society appointments to outside bodies. >> >> *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* >> >> After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations >> within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their >> individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for >> endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names >> short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. >> >> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups >> working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively >> on behalf of public interest concerns. >> >> 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS >> networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where >> appropriate) on MAG discussions. >> >> 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >> >> 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >> constructively in the MAG deliberations. >> >> >> >> In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the >> advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society >> representatives were ending their terms this year -€“ an unusually high >> number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new >> members as outlined below. >> >> We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil >> society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full >> application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG >> members. >> >> *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) >> >> *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) >> >> *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) >> >> *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) >> >> *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) >> >> *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) >> >> *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). >> >> *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). >> >> *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) >> >> *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) >> >> We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms >> have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose >> term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima >> to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the >> continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the >> continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only >> remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In >> doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are >> civil society representatives. >> >> In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of >> very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in >> its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite >> their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, >> should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional >> representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very >> pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society >> people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. >> >> >> >> We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to >> discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF >> Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we >> thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise >> and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to >> represent civil society. >> >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* >> >> Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >> >> Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >> >> Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >> >> Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications >> representative >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >> >> Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee >> discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she >> intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not >> participate in the Nominating Committee. >> >> >> >> *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination >> Group -€“ brief descriptions* >> >> · Association for Progressive Communications, an international >> membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to >> empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy >> and affordable access to a free and open internet. >> >> · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across >> the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and >> joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil >> society interests in Internet governance. >> >> · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members >> in 120 countries >> >> · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants >> from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage >> effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over >> 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. >> >> · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 >> organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically >> address emerging internet governance issues. >> >> · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with >> specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. >> >> · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of >> more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop >> Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. >> NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy >> including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural >> interests. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 -- Shahzad Ahmad Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan @bytesforall | @sirkup Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 13 03:31:15 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:01:15 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] US style Multistakeholderism Message-ID: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> A report in the Pirate Party International's magazine on what is calls as US style multistakeholderism.. http://piratetimes.net/democracy-and-hypocrisy-the-us-governments-multi-stakeholder-model/ parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 13 03:40:03 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:10:03 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: US style Multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> References: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <543B81D3.8040803@itforchange.net> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: US style Multistakeholderism Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:01:15 +0530 From: parminder To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org , bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org , bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, forum at justnetcoalition.org A report in the Pirate Party International's magazine on what is calls as the US style multistakeholderism.. http://piratetimes.net/democracy-and-hypocrisy-the-us-governments-multi-stakeholder-model/ parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 13 04:35:00 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:05:00 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Is everything bright about the ICT revolution Message-ID: <543B8EB4.5070100@itforchange.net> "The authors of the proposal also cite the 2013 Oxford University report ‘The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to computerization?’, where 47% of all jobs in the US are said in danger of extinction at the hands of technological progress. The fields of transport, communication, office work, administration and production are all predicted to be heavily affected. “It is clear,” states the exposition, “that the current social security system will not be able to handle the costs of this immense technological progress.” " http://grapevine.is/news/2014/10/08/pirates-propose-guaranteed-minimal-income/ Issues that civil society needs to be discussing most. There is a world beyond "Internet freedom", even if we provisionally consider this concept apart from its current capture by the most dominant global economic and political forces . Has anyone really thought through what the virulent anti-governmentalism of the multi-stakeholderist front does to the future prospects of the poor? (Yes, I know the WEF ists have thought it through, I mean other more innocent followers.) Does it not at some level mean dismantling the welfare state, when it may be needed even more than before, with global corporations escaping all regulation and much of their taxation obligations. Where are these agenda in global IG, and which civil society speaks about them? Not only we need the global Internet corporations to pay their proper taxes, at places where value accures and not at the places of their incorporation (whether some fancy pacific island or the US), we also need people of the world to be able to appropriate the value that accrues from their information and their data which illegally siphoned value today runs the Internet economy.... parminder From dbu at donnybu.com Fri Oct 3 00:41:42 2014 From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:41:42 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) In-Reply-To: <542D7F2F.2010603@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org> <000001cfdcd5$634e89f0$29eb9dd0$@IGFPAK.org> <542CFA94.1060205@bytesforall.pk> <542D7F2F.2010603@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: also +1 for Byoungil -dbu- On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > I am in the "others" category....and I think he would be great!! > Strongly support Byoungil Oh. > Stephanie Perrin > > On 2014-10-02, 3:11, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > Dear Jeremy and colleagues, > > Several CSOs in Asia including FMA (Philippines), Open Institute > (Cambodia), BFES (Bangladesh), Bytes for All (Pakistan) are nominating and > supporting Byoungil Oh of Jinbonet, Korea for the MAG. > > We strongly believe that he makes a great candidate for this important > job. > > We are seeking endorsement of his candidature from Best Bits, APC and > others. > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > > > > > > > From: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [ > > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: > Saturday, September 27, 2014 2:03 PM To: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations > for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory > group (MAG) So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into > the process: * Avri Doria * Lea Kaspar * John Dada * Matthew Shears * > Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Before we close on September 30 this is a last call > for any final nominations. Can I also please ask those who haven't already > done so to send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria? > Thanks. On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: This is a call for nominations for civil > society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG). > This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society > coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net > Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups. > Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30 If you wish to nominate via Best > Bits, or you have been nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on > list or by email to > jmalcolm at eff.org. Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, > country of residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically > address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and > evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection > criteria. CRITERIA * Past record of active engagement as part of civil > society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking > out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. * Willingness and > commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond > those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. > * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. * Willing, > available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG > deliberations. Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also > follow this process. Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The > list of candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October > 16. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > Shahzad Ahmad > Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan > @bytesforall | @sirkup > Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 > > PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > -- e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Oct 13 07:56:49 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:56:49 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] [Help]after a successfully signed ITU transparency letter, let's advocate for it?? In-Reply-To: <23FA87C8-E76B-4E17-AAB5-358F97B976DB@varonferraz.com> References: <036001cfe3cb$b025b080$10711180$@gp-digital.org> <036901cfe3cd$07ea2520$17be6f60$@gp-digital.org> <23FA87C8-E76B-4E17-AAB5-358F97B976DB@varonferraz.com> Message-ID: <543BBE01.302@varonferraz.com> Dear all, As Lea has mentioned below, the letter asking for ITU transparency was sent to the Secretariat and remains open for signatures at the Best Bits platform: http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency. Therefore, signatures keep coming in (thanks for those who have already signed). But a statement is not enough, its just the first step. As we have no public voice to raise these points at the plenary of the ITU Plenipotentiary - PP, besides reaching the Secretary General (who ultimately also cannot change the rules), _*we need to influence country delegations to support and improve the texts from draft resolutions* that already exist and are asking for transparency.__ _ While countries who have proposed theses draft resolutions (which most of us cannot see because its information under ITU password protection!) are already allies in the matter and could incorporate some of our demands. On the other hand, people from countries which doesnt have a position on this could also be strategic. Therefore, being from any country and even if you are not going or dont intend to be deeply engaged in the PP, just sending the statement to your country delegation is already a huge help for the cause of openness. Remember that, due to the dynamics of the Plenipot, most of the CSO people participating at the PP has to be subscribed within country delegations, therefore might have some diplomatic constraints for doing outreach of CSO positions to other countries, being able to bring these positions only to their own delegation. Thats why any extra help on outreach to Member States is truly welcomed = we need you!* ** So, t**his is the a call:* * ** **a) Reach your country delegate: *ping ur delegation at the ITU-PP on this (list of delegations is available under ITU account, would be good if anyone could point to a link where its public so people would find it easier to send emails to the right person - I couldnt find it yet). To make your engagement easier, a draft sample of an email to deliver it to your representative is available here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/letter2delegation (if you improve it or translate it to other languages, please, also post in the pad so you help the work of others from the same region as you). *b) Tweet under the hashtag #openITU:* if you have delivered the letter, and feel comfortable to, please, tweet about it under the hashtag #OpenITU, so we can also create a little buzz in social media. Example of a tweet: ITU transparency statement was shared with "your_country" delegates #openITU *http://tinyurl.com/oxamjjs*or even tweet it straight to your delegates. ** Lets take advantage that the issue on transparency is so important to raise substantial consensus among many of us to have a little win. In return, those who are going can - and lets be sure we do it - give a follow up to all the lists we have engaged for signatures or requests like this... so people dont get frustrated on signing papers with the impressions it lead nowhere :) Currently, as far as I know, the main argument against opening access to documents is $$$. As some have been arguing that organizations apply for member$hip to have access to this documents. Rationale questionable /per se/ and not strong enough to justify blocking access to policy processes. Times have changed, openness should be a rule. Hope it sounds like a (good/possible) plan. all the best joana -- @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 > On 9 October 2014 11:26:33 GMT-03:00, Lea Kaspar > wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Find below the email sent to the ITU Secretary General with our > letter attached. I have added a footnote in the letter next to the > list of signatories pointing to the fact that the letter remains a > living document open for endorsements. Thank you to all who have > participated in this effort. > > > > Please feel free to share this with your contacts and encourage > further organisational and individual sign-ons. > > > > I will let you know as soon as we hear back! > > > > Best, > > Lea > > > > *From:*Lea Kaspar [mailto:lea at gp-digital.org] > *Sent:* 09 October 2014 15:17 > *To:* sgo at itu.int > *Cc:* preetam.maloor at itu.int > *Subject:* Open civil society letter re transparency at ITU > Plenipotentiary > > > > Dear Secretary-General Touré, > > > > I am writing to share with you an open letter developed by a group > of civil society organisations from around the world regarding the > upcoming International Telecommunication Union (ITU) > Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan. Please find the letter > attached. Over the last two days, the letter has already received > 31 organisational and individual endorsements from 18 countries, > and it will remain open for endorsements until the Conference. > > > > The endorsing groups and individuals call for the ITU to build on > its previous commitments to openness and transparency in an effort > to work towards an ever more inclusive, transparent and > accountable Union. More specifically, the letter lists a number of > concrete asks relating to the upcoming Plenipotentiary in Busan. > > > > We look forward to your response and continuing dialogue in the > run up to and at the Conference. > > > > We remain at your disposal for any questions or comments. > > > > With Kind Regards, > > *--* > > *Lea Kaspar* > > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar > > gp-digital.org > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Mon Oct 13 10:19:56 2014 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:19:56 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [Help]after a successfully signed ITU transparency letter, let's advocate for it?? In-Reply-To: <543BBE01.302@varonferraz.com> References: <036001cfe3cb$b025b080$10711180$@gp-digital.org> <036901cfe3cd$07ea2520$17be6f60$@gp-digital.org> <23FA87C8-E76B-4E17-AAB5-358F97B976DB@varonferraz.com> <543BBE01.302@varonferraz.com> Message-ID: <543BDF8C.5090501@digitaldissidents.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi all, If you don't know who your representative at the ITU is, drop me an email (mentioning your country) and I will send you the email address of your representative. So please reach out to your country delegate with the letter: http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ And tweet it under the hashtag #openITU Let's Open Up the ITU ! Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 10/13/2014 04:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear all, > > As Lea has mentioned below, the letter asking for ITU transparency > was sent to the Secretariat and remains open for signatures at the > Best Bits platform: http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency. > Therefore, signatures keep coming in (thanks for those who have > already signed). But a statement is not enough, its just the first > step. > > As we have no public voice to raise these points at the plenary of > the ITU Plenipotentiary - PP, besides reaching the Secretary > General (who ultimately also cannot change the rules), _*we need to > influence country delegations to support and improve the texts from > draft resolutions* that already exist and are asking for > transparency.__ _ While countries who have proposed theses draft > resolutions (which most of us cannot see because its information > under ITU password protection!) are already allies in the matter > and could incorporate some of our demands. On the other hand, > people from countries which doesnt have a position on this could > also be strategic. Therefore, being from any country and even if > you are not going or dont intend to be deeply engaged in the PP, > just sending the statement to your country delegation is already a > huge help for the cause of openness. > > Remember that, due to the dynamics of the Plenipot, most of the > CSO people participating at the PP has to be subscribed within > country delegations, therefore might have some diplomatic > constraints for doing outreach of CSO positions to other countries, > being able to bring these positions only to their own delegation. > Thats why any extra help on outreach to Member States is truly > welcomed = we need you!* ** So, t**his is the a call:* * ** **a) > Reach your country delegate: *ping ur delegation at the ITU-PP on > this (list of delegations is available under ITU account, would be > good if anyone could point to a link where its public so people > would find it easier to send emails to the right person - I couldnt > find it yet). To make your engagement easier, a draft sample of an > email to deliver it to your representative is available here: > https://pad.riseup.net/p/letter2delegation (if you improve it or > translate it to other languages, please, also post in the pad so > you help the work of others from the same region as you). > > *b) Tweet under the hashtag #openITU:* if you have delivered the > letter, and feel comfortable to, please, tweet about it under the > hashtag #OpenITU, so we can also create a little buzz in social > media. Example of a tweet: ITU transparency statement was shared > with "your_country" delegates #openITU > *http://tinyurl.com/oxamjjs*or even tweet it straight to your > delegates. ** Lets take advantage that the issue on transparency is > so important to raise substantial consensus among many of us to > have a little win. In return, those who are going can - and lets be > sure we do it - give a follow up to all the lists we have engaged > for signatures or requests like this... so people dont get > frustrated on signing papers with the impressions it lead nowhere > :) > > Currently, as far as I know, the main argument against opening > access to documents is $$$. As some have been arguing that > organizations apply for member$hip to have access to this > documents. Rationale questionable /per se/ and not strong enough to > justify blocking access to policy processes. Times have changed, > openness should be a rule. > > Hope it sounds like a (good/possible) plan. > > all the best > > joana > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUO9+MAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpE1cH/j6RRMVmady+jjT2H2S8r+i9 VW5/tZpnJVsyTjNHvRFx8ovMo9k3w54IFHiglQ93R+xNyHUmed6S+B8JM8fF45jO YkiipNtJpj90Hk1ebNNENyrdJa9YQSMEzeILh3JZvcSrmdF0qddjirmUGR6u3ViR JZmSLZSzS8CKWylv1nOiDp6+IXGNh5TbybtDb0YQZQGoq/GAIEsgUct1/s7hqgWT lMRqhq3gwQPrCUjf2oigLt0TsB0PafhvylxUYL98etjrneRwfKT9WPwY+7R/5V5j i5IvDIaq0vFpt6EpkDXlxoVu1BmoTn4PTsRyIzHLiKs57w+bKOBX4dpi5Mo2Q7E= =/+kj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 10:39:12 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:39:12 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Is everything bright about the ICT revolution In-Reply-To: <543B8EB4.5070100@itforchange.net> References: <543B8EB4.5070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <02c501cfe6f3$75d3f420$617bdc60$@gmail.com> For a parallel position from a rather non-Pirate source see http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21621800-digital-revolution-bringing-sweeping-change-labour-markets-both-rich-and-poor M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 1:35 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: [bestbits] Is everything bright about the ICT revolution "The authors of the proposal also cite the 2013 Oxford University report ‘The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to computerization?’, where 47% of all jobs in the US are said in danger of extinction at the hands of technological progress. The fields of transport, communication, office work, administration and production are all predicted to be heavily affected. “It is clear,” states the exposition, “that the current social security system will not be able to handle the costs of this immense technological progress.” " http://grapevine.is/news/2014/10/08/pirates-propose-guaranteed-minimal-income/ Issues that civil society needs to be discussing most. There is a world beyond "Internet freedom", even if we provisionally consider this concept apart from its current capture by the most dominant global economic and political forces . Has anyone really thought through what the virulent anti-governmentalism of the multi-stakeholderist front does to the future prospects of the poor? (Yes, I know the WEF ists have thought it through, I mean other more innocent followers.) Does it not at some level mean dismantling the welfare state, when it may be needed even more than before, with global corporations escaping all regulation and much of their taxation obligations. Where are these agenda in global IG, and which civil society speaks about them? Not only we need the global Internet corporations to pay their proper taxes, at places where value accures and not at the places of their incorporation (whether some fancy pacific island or the US), we also need people of the world to be able to appropriate the value that accrues from their information and their data which illegally siphoned value today runs the Internet economy.... parminder From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Mon Oct 13 12:59:56 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:59:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: <543C050C.8010408@softwarefreedom.org> +1 On 10/11/2014 04:54 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! > > Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG for > coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. > > Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If > only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's > recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong > representation of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. It > is really heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong yet > varied list of names, and do so in unison. > > Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society > representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the MAG > over the years. You've been wonderful. > > Warm regards, > Anja > > > On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) > is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as > regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major > civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena and > associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working > together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and > conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to > outside bodies. > > *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for > Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the > names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would > be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG Nominating > Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, > with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society > groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking > out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS > networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance > where appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and > constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered > the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be > civil society representatives were ending their terms this > year -€“ an unusually high number on an annual basis. Accordingly, > we have selected 10 names for new members as outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for > civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a > full application with further details pertaining to their > suitability as MAG members. > > *1.* *Sunil Abraham*(India) > > *2.* *Renata Avila*(Guatemala) > > *3.* *Oh Byoungil*(South Korea) > > *4.* *John Dada*(Nigeria) > > *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) > > *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) > > *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). > > *8.* *Jak SM Kee*(Malaysia). > > *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) > > *10.* *Virginia Paque*(Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year > terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil > society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero > (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent representative, > and have no hesitation in supporting the continuation of her term > of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the continued > involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only > remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 > MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing > members of MAG who are civil society representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide > range of very talented civil society representatives it was not > able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for > all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, and > will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names of > suitable and accomplished additional representatives in providing > overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide > additional names in confidence of further civil society people who > could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly > to discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the > IGF Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the > mean time, we thank everyone for their participation and > co-operation in this exercise and believe that this effort has > yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society. > > > > Sincerely > > > > *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications > representative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating > Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria > developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana > (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. > > > > *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co > ordination Group -€“ brief descriptions* > > · Association for Progressive Communications, an > international membership-based network founded in 1990 who work > together in using ICTs to empower and support others to build > strategic communities and promote easy and affordable access to a > free and open internet. > > · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from > across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on > individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and > other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance. > > · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 > members in 120 countries > > · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting > participants from small and developing states to build the > capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and > diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity > Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals > and activists from 163 states. > > · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over > 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to > specifically address emerging internet governance issues. > > · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition > with specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. > > · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an > organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and > individuals who develop Internet policy through participation in > ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes noncommercial > interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including human > rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural interests. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 -- 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 13:06:09 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:06:09 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: <543C050C.8010408@softwarefreedom.org> References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> <543C050C.8010408@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: Beyond a great list of persons (to whom I give total support and confidence) it is also important for us to trust the CSCG, with Ian as its non-voting Chair to continue work on nominations. Many thanks to network leads who have given their time, like Jeremy for Best Bits N On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > +1 > > > > On 10/11/2014 04:54 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! > > Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG for > coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. > > Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If only > we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's > recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong representation > of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. It is really > heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong yet varied list of > names, and do so in unison. > > Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society > representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the MAG over > the years. You've been wonderful. > > Warm regards, > Anja > > > On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is >> pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil >> society representation on MAG 2015. >> >> As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major civil >> society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated >> areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a >> co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making >> civil society appointments to outside bodies. >> >> *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* >> >> After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations >> within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their >> individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for >> endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names >> short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. >> >> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups >> working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively >> on behalf of public interest concerns. >> >> 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS >> networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where >> appropriate) on MAG discussions. >> >> 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >> >> 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >> constructively in the MAG deliberations. >> >> >> >> In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the >> advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society >> representatives were ending their terms this year -€“ an unusually high >> number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new >> members as outlined below. >> >> We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil >> society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full >> application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG >> members. >> >> *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) >> >> *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) >> >> *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) >> >> *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) >> >> *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) >> >> *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) >> >> *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). >> >> *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). >> >> *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) >> >> *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) >> >> We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms >> have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose >> term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima >> to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the >> continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the >> continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only >> remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In >> doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are >> civil society representatives. >> >> In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of >> very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in >> its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite >> their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, >> should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional >> representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very >> pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society >> people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. >> >> >> >> We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to >> discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF >> Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we >> thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise >> and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to >> represent civil society. >> >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* >> >> Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >> >> Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >> >> Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >> >> Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications >> representative >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >> >> Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating >> Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria >> developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana >> (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. >> >> >> >> *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination >> Group -€“ brief descriptions* >> >> · Association for Progressive Communications, an international >> membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to >> empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy >> and affordable access to a free and open internet. >> >> · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from >> across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual >> and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared >> civil society interests in Internet governance. >> >> · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 >> members in 120 countries >> >> · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants >> from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage >> effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over >> 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. >> >> · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 >> organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically >> address emerging internet governance issues. >> >> · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with >> specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. >> >> · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of >> more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop >> Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. >> NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy >> including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural >> interests. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530www.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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurcharya at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 13:57:07 2014 From: gurcharya at gmail.com (Guru Acharya) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:27:07 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, The list comprises of brilliant and accomplished representatives. I commend the CSCG Nomcom for its work. I'm curious to know whether the deliberations of the CSCG Nomcom are transcribed or if the CSCG Nomcom mailing list is open for review so that people who want to nominate themselves in the future are aware of the baseline requirements. Regards, Acharya On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is > pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil > society representation on MAG 2015. > > As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major civil > society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated > areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a > co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making > civil society appointments to outside bodies. > > *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* > > After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations > within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their > individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for > endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names > short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. > > 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups > working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively > on behalf of public interest concerns. > > 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS > networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where > appropriate) on MAG discussions. > > 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > > 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and > constructively in the MAG deliberations. > > > > In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the > advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society > representatives were ending their terms this year -€“ an unusually high > number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new > members as outlined below. > > We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil > society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full > application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG > members. > > *1.* *Sunil Abraham* (India) > > *2.* *Renata Avila* (Guatemala) > > *3.* *Oh Byoungil* (South Korea) > > *4.* *John Dada* (Nigeria) > > *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) > > *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) > > *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). > > *8.* *Jak SM Kee* (Malaysia). > > *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) > > *10.* *Virginia Paque* (Venezuela) > > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms > have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose > term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima > to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the > continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the > continued involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only > remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In > doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are > civil society representatives. > > In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of > very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in > its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite > their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, > should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional > representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very > pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society > people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > > > > We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to > discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF > Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we > thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise > and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to > represent civil society. > > > > Sincerely > > > > *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* > > Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative > > Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative > > Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative > > Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications > representative > > Ian Peter, Independent Chair > > Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee > discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she > intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not > participate in the Nominating Committee. > > > > *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination > Group -€“ brief descriptions* > > · Association for Progressive Communications, an international > membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to > empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy > and affordable access to a free and open internet. > > · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across > the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and > joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil > society interests in Internet governance. > > · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members > in 120 countries > > · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants > from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage > effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over > 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. > > · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 > organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically > address emerging internet governance issues. > > · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with > specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. > > · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of > more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop > Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. > NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy > including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural > interests. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Oct 13 14:03:22 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:03:22 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: <543C13EA.5050705@eff.org> On 13/10/2014 10:57 am, Guru Acharya wrote: > The list comprises of brilliant and accomplished representatives. I > commend the CSCG Nomcom for its work. > > I'm curious to know whether the deliberations of the CSCG Nomcom are > transcribed or if the CSCG Nomcom mailing list is open for review so > that people who want to nominate themselves in the future are aware of > the baseline requirements. The requirements were sent around to all of the lists when we called for nominations (see thread "Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)" on 18 September), but there are strong privacy reasons why we wouldn't open up the deliberations about the respective merits of individual candidates to public review. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dave at difference.com.au Mon Oct 13 14:09:05 2014 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:09:05 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] US style Multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> References: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Seemed to almost entirely be a criticism of the US govts hypocrisy in talking up its commitment to multi-stakeholderism while simultaneously pursuing lobbyist led goals by other means. As a criticism of US govt hypocrisy, its fine. As a criticism of multi-stakeholderism, its incoherent. I particularly like the way it says we should have open and transparent negotiation - and then in the next paragraph says we should exclude Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc. Open, but only to people they like? Essentially, advocating the same behaviour they just decried in the US govt. Openness is like free speech -- you are either for or against it, and if you are only in favour of it for people you like, you aren't for it. And, of course, the author says it is terrible if there are back room, secret negotiations - but also says lets exclude the largest commercial organisations from open and transparent negotiations, meaning non-public efforts would be their only option. Anyone think that recipe works? But hey, look at the solution the author proposes - just change the entire economy so most commercial organisations are organised as workers collectives. Anyone else think that should be our focus for action, just hope we can replace Facebook, Google, etc with workers collectives? Cheers David On 13 Oct 2014, at 12:31 am, parminder wrote: > A report in the Pirate Party International's magazine on what is calls as US style multistakeholderism.. > > http://piratetimes.net/democracy-and-hypocrisy-the-us-governments-multi-stakeholder-model/ > > parminder > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From gurcharya at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 14:27:36 2014 From: gurcharya at gmail.com (Guru Acharya) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:57:36 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: <543C13EA.5050705@eff.org> References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> <543C13EA.5050705@eff.org> Message-ID: Just as a suggestion, is it possible to create objective criteria for future selections, which is open to review. For example, for every previous IGF attendance, the person gets a +1 mark; for every panel the person has spoken on, he gets a +1 mark; for active participation on the coalition mailing list he gets certain marks; possibly, extra marks for being from a developing country. These marks could then be totaled. There should be no privacy concerns in making such objective evaluation public. I understand the limitations of objective evaluation; but I feel transparency is more important than the subjective criteria that raises privacy concerns. Voting could be another option for ensuring transparency but I figure voting doesn't have legitimacy in a multi-stakeholder environment except for the RIRs and the NRO. On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 13/10/2014 10:57 am, Guru Acharya wrote: > > The list comprises of brilliant and accomplished representatives. I > > commend the CSCG Nomcom for its work. > > > > I'm curious to know whether the deliberations of the CSCG Nomcom are > > transcribed or if the CSCG Nomcom mailing list is open for review so > > that people who want to nominate themselves in the future are aware of > > the baseline requirements. > > The requirements were sent around to all of the lists when we called for > nominations (see thread "Call for nominations for civil society > representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)" on 18 > September), but there are strong privacy reasons why we wouldn't open up > the deliberations about the respective merits of individual candidates > to public review. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 14:28:54 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:28:54 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] US style Multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3C590584-E4FA-4284-86CF-647435DB6466@gmail.com> Hi On Oct 13, 2014, at 11:09 AM, David Cake wrote: > Seemed to almost entirely be a criticism of the US govts hypocrisy in talking up its commitment to multi-stakeholderism while simultaneously pursuing lobbyist led goals by other means. > As a criticism of US govt hypocrisy, its fine. As a criticism of multi-stakeholderism, its incoherent. I agree with David on both counts. BTW of relevance to the article, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/business/obama-reiterates-his-support-for-net-neutrality.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0 Bill From squ24n at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 08:45:22 2014 From: squ24n at gmail.com (Borami Kim) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 21:45:22 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Call for nominations for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG) In-Reply-To: References: <541B30CE.3060505@eff.org> <5B16FB54-79D5-43C2-BE0A-D619EDCDA01E@eff.org> <000001cfdcd5$634e89f0$29eb9dd0$@IGFPAK.org> <542CFA94.1060205@bytesforall.pk> <542D7F2F.2010603@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: +1 for Byoungil Oh and Lea Best regards, Borami Kim 2014-10-03 13:41 GMT+09:00 Donny B.U. : > also +1 for Byoungil > > -dbu- > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> I am in the "others" category....and I think he would be great!! >> Strongly support Byoungil Oh. >> Stephanie Perrin >> >> On 2014-10-02, 3:11, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >> Dear Jeremy and colleagues, >> >> Several CSOs in Asia including FMA (Philippines), Open Institute >> (Cambodia), BFES (Bangladesh), Bytes for All (Pakistan) are nominating and >> supporting Byoungil Oh of Jinbonet, Korea for the MAG. >> >> We strongly believe that he makes a great candidate for this important >> job. >> >> We are seeking endorsement of his candidature from Best Bits, APC and >> others. >> >> Best wishes and regards >> Shahzad >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [ >> >> mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> ] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: >> Saturday, September 27, 2014 2:03 PM To: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for nominations >> for civil society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory >> group (MAG) So far I believe we have these candidates to put forward into >> the process: * Avri Doria * Lea Kaspar * John Dada * Matthew Shears * >> Ephraim Percy Kenyanito Before we close on September 30 this is a last call >> for any final nominations. Can I also please ask those who haven't already >> done so to send (me, or the list) a statement addressing the criteria? >> Thanks. On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >> wrote: This is a call for nominations for civil >> society representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG). >> This nomination process in 2014 will be run across several civil society >> coalitions, including Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net >> Coalition. You are welcome to nominate through any of the above groups. >> Nominations close on Tuesday, September 30 If you wish to nominate via Best >> Bits, or you have been nominated and wish to accept, please do so either on >> list or by email to >> jmalcolm at eff.org. Please include in your nomination, the nominee's name, >> country of residence and nationality, and gender. Please also specifically >> address each of the selection criteria below, giving us examples and >> evidence of how the nominee meets each of the individual selection >> criteria. CRITERIA * Past record of active engagement as part of civil >> society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking >> out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. * Willingness and >> commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond >> those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. >> * Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. * Willing, >> available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG >> deliberations. Existing MAG members seeking CSCG endorsement should also >> follow this process. Nominations must close on Tuesday, September 30. The >> list of candidates endorsed by CSCG will be published no later than October >> 16. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- >> Shahzad Ahmad >> Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan >> @bytesforall | @sirkup >> Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981 >> >> PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 >> > > > > -- > e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: > +62818930932 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Oct 13 14:32:08 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:32:08 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: <543C050C.8010408@softwarefreedom.org> References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> <543C050C.8010408@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <0E81B030-63EC-47D4-B016-19CADAA6BCD1@varonferraz.com> Congratulations for all and to those closely involved in the selection process. The list gives me very good feelings and hope in the IGF to come! best joana -- @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 On 13 October 2014 13:59:56 GMT-03:00, Mishi Choudhary wrote: >+1 > > >On 10/11/2014 04:54 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! >> >> Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG for >> coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. >> >> Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If >> only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's >> recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong >> representation of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. >It >> is really heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong yet >> varied list of names, and do so in unison. >> >> Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society >> representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the >MAG >> over the years. You've been wonderful. >> >> Warm regards, >> Anja >> >> >> On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: >> >> The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) >> is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as >> regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. >> >> As you know, CSCG is a "€œcoalition of coalitions"€ of the major >> civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena >and >> associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working >> together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and >> conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to >> outside bodies. >> >> *Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives* >> >> After each of our coalition members published a Call for >> Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the >> names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would >> be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG Nominating >> Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, >> with the following criteria. >> >> 1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society >> groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking >> out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. >> >> 2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to >CS >> networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance >> where appropriate) on MAG discussions. >> >> 3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. >> >> 4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and >> constructively in the MAG deliberations. >> >> >> >> In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered >> the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be >> civil society representatives were ending their terms this >> year -€“ an unusually high number on an annual basis. >Accordingly, >> we have selected 10 names for new members as outlined below. >> >> We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives >for >> civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a >> full application with further details pertaining to their >> suitability as MAG members. >> >> *1.* *Sunil Abraham*(India) >> >> *2.* *Renata Avila*(Guatemala) >> >> *3.* *Oh Byoungil*(South Korea) >> >> *4.* *John Dada*(Nigeria) >> >> *5.* *Avri Doria *(USA) >> >> *6.* *Stuart Hamilton *(United Kingdom) >> >> *7.* *Lea Kaspar *(Croatia). >> >> *8.* *Jak SM Kee*(Malaysia). >> >> *9.* *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito *(Kenya) >> >> *10.* *Virginia Paque*(Venezuela) >> >> We also considered the remaining representatives whose three >year >> terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil >> society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero >> (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent >representative, >> and have no hesitation in supporting the continuation of her term >> of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the continued >> involvement of *Fatima Cambronero* (Argentina) as the only >> remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 >> MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing >> members of MAG who are civil society representatives. >> >> In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide >> range of very talented civil society representatives it was not >> able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for >> all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, and >> will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names of >> suitable and accomplished additional representatives in providing >> overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide >> additional names in confidence of further civil society people >who >> could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. >> >> >> >> We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives >shortly >> to discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the >> IGF Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the >> mean time, we thank everyone for their participation and >> co-operation in this exercise and believe that this effort has >> yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society. >> >> >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> *2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee* >> >> Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >> >> Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >> >> Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >> >> Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications >> representative >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Chair >> >> Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating >> Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria >> developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep >Tiwana >> (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. >> >> >> >> *Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co >> ordination Group -€“ brief descriptions* >> >> · Association for Progressive Communications, an >> international membership-based network founded in 1990 who work >> together in using ICTs to empower and support others to build >> strategic communities and promote easy and affordable access to a >> free and open internet. >> >> · Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations >from >> across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on >> individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and >> other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet >governance. >> >> · Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 >> members in 120 countries >> >> · Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting >> participants from small and developing states to build the >> capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and >> diplomacy. Since 2003, Diplo’s Internet Governance Capacity >> Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals >> and activists from 163 states. >> >> · Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over >> 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to >> specifically address emerging internet governance issues. >> >> · Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition >> with specific interests in democracy, human rights and social >justice. >> >> · Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an >> organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and >> individuals who develop Internet policy through participation in >> ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes noncommercial >> interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including human >> rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural >interests. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 > > >-- >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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at apc.org Mon Oct 13 17:17:45 2014 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 17:17:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [Help]after a successfully signed ITU transparency letter, let's advocate for it?? In-Reply-To: <543BDF8C.5090501@digitaldissidents.org> References: <036001cfe3cb$b025b080$10711180$@gp-digital.org> <036901cfe3cd$07ea2520$17be6f60$@gp-digital.org> <23FA87C8-E76B-4E17-AAB5-358F97B976DB@varonferraz.com> <543BBE01.302@varonferraz.com> <543BDF8C.5090501@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <543C4179.7000603@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi all, There is a provisional participant list available on WCITLeaks: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-ADM-0002!!PDF-E.pdf It's not complete, but at least a start. Hopefully, an updated version will be made available soon. Also, lots of proposals are available on WCITLeaks and through Anatel: http://www.anatel.gov.br/Portal/exibirPortalPaginaEspecial.do?acao=&codItemCanal=1950&codigoVisao=$visao.codigo&nomeVisao=$visao.descricao&nomeCanal=Comiss%F5es%20/%20Comit%EAs&nomeItemCanal=Confer%EAncia%20de%20Plenipotenci%E1rios%20de%202014%20(PP-14)&codCanal=423 Best, Deborah On 10/13/14 10:19 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > Hi all, > > If you don't know who your representative at the ITU is, drop me > an email (mentioning your country) and I will send you the email > address of your representative. > > So please reach out to your country delegate with the letter: > http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ > > And tweet it under the hashtag #openITU > > Let's Open Up the ITU ! > > Best, > > Niels > > Niels ten Oever Head of Digital > > Article 19 www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D > 68E9 > > On 10/13/2014 04:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >> Dear all, > >> As Lea has mentioned below, the letter asking for ITU >> transparency was sent to the Secretariat and remains open for >> signatures at the Best Bits platform: >> http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency. Therefore, signatures >> keep coming in (thanks for those who have already signed). But a >> statement is not enough, its just the first step. > >> As we have no public voice to raise these points at the plenary >> of the ITU Plenipotentiary - PP, besides reaching the Secretary >> General (who ultimately also cannot change the rules), _*we need >> to influence country delegations to support and improve the texts >> from draft resolutions* that already exist and are asking for >> transparency.__ _ While countries who have proposed theses draft >> resolutions (which most of us cannot see because its information >> under ITU password protection!) are already allies in the matter >> and could incorporate some of our demands. On the other hand, >> people from countries which doesnt have a position on this could >> also be strategic. Therefore, being from any country and even if >> you are not going or dont intend to be deeply engaged in the PP, >> just sending the statement to your country delegation is already >> a huge help for the cause of openness. > >> Remember that, due to the dynamics of the Plenipot, most of the >> CSO people participating at the PP has to be subscribed within >> country delegations, therefore might have some diplomatic >> constraints for doing outreach of CSO positions to other >> countries, being able to bring these positions only to their own >> delegation. Thats why any extra help on outreach to Member States >> is truly welcomed = we need you!* ** So, t**his is the a call:* * >> ** **a) Reach your country delegate: *ping ur delegation at the >> ITU-PP on this (list of delegations is available under ITU >> account, would be good if anyone could point to a link where its >> public so people would find it easier to send emails to the right >> person - I couldnt find it yet). To make your engagement easier, >> a draft sample of an email to deliver it to your representative >> is available here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/letter2delegation (if >> you improve it or translate it to other languages, please, also >> post in the pad so you help the work of others from the same >> region as you). > >> *b) Tweet under the hashtag #openITU:* if you have delivered the >> letter, and feel comfortable to, please, tweet about it under >> the hashtag #OpenITU, so we can also create a little buzz in >> social media. Example of a tweet: ITU transparency statement was >> shared with "your_country" delegates #openITU >> *http://tinyurl.com/oxamjjs*or even tweet it straight to your >> delegates. ** Lets take advantage that the issue on transparency >> is so important to raise substantial consensus among many of us >> to have a little win. In return, those who are going can - and >> lets be sure we do it - give a follow up to all the lists we have >> engaged for signatures or requests like this... so people dont >> get frustrated on signing papers with the impressions it lead >> nowhere :) > >> Currently, as far as I know, the main argument against opening >> access to documents is $$$. As some have been arguing that >> organizations apply for member$hip to have access to this >> documents. Rationale questionable /per se/ and not strong enough >> to justify blocking access to policy processes. Times have >> changed, openness should be a rule. > >> Hope it sounds like a (good/possible) plan. > >> all the best > >> joana > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUPEF5AAoJEPeieloNaneNofcP/jEI9d4mZXCkCSRgRobD3YcV FUjXU7w0CNEkulDQGkxhCmgdhvVS/Oxhgyfuk53aD4Vh5ayqNDTq4V/ctjeoGnmu S/ZOwpBxxWSgzmGENn1nGDZ+YnyISZbSrelyp5TqfIZWrn6srozq2EVXuLk15efy vCFHCMnZ/RSCFElQjLXc/8rzu92LsOlcBfJau24TdiTm9EfWiIyw5MQKW3vBjlEN iIBeco8QT0lVabHXgtNlb5p9c7EwXBftMvU+096zCkOj9fdAFSY54KCKVV0K5jgq 6L5kbYmV186cFSGA0CEu6da4a7OuyPcYet9S28+LFl2WQwP5yj3juZSQO83W9Ysh ZOdNgxplgBauYy6XI7HYHXPo2WArBIKFhe26kbKoit1dCBG9NjyivdJYrrzKc3of EIZkW2mIIQGH2QqnB9TOjHguOv0Yu/xApJS2XbxRAaraAk4lmRzLrcSv1Idq5Kx3 V2PzOj0pB37tnbQnPpPZMB5pDvEb+hYu1fhAAK1UNkATZYaCQas8Tw9F8RFTG0Xw lA1Tju7sEWVZ1XGKj8uEGhixweQAE8AJnz+83t3/H5O910QGYx2Mc/poqqtHlrDL q9G9qmvq7dyJaRHw26wEiSoyxwDsWVye0HVN4n1CjMQ6bCJmWuNv+myKP87dQ8fw oA1RjBg1x+DLiEpi984o =yCbH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 18:30:12 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:30:12 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> <543C13EA.5050705@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi Guru, I think there are MAG requirement already stated on the IGF website. While it's okay to have some other internal criteria aside that, I think it's important not to make them cast and stone because every individual will be at different level of experience. It will be good to always have a mix of already experienced+willing to learn folks on the MAG to allow for capacity building and good continuity. Just as a point for clarification, RIRs don't entirely rely on voting in their processes as they operate more on consensus basis with voting being the last resort. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Oct 2014 11:27, "Guru Acharya" wrote: > Just as a suggestion, is it possible to create objective criteria for > future selections, which is open to review. > > For example, for every previous IGF attendance, the person gets a +1 mark; > for every panel the person has spoken on, he gets a +1 mark; for active > participation on the coalition mailing list he gets certain marks; > possibly, extra marks for being from a developing country. > > These marks could then be totaled. There should be no privacy concerns in > making such objective evaluation public. > > I understand the limitations of objective evaluation; but I feel > transparency is more important than the subjective criteria that raises > privacy concerns. > > Voting could be another option for ensuring transparency but I figure > voting doesn't have legitimacy in a multi-stakeholder environment except > for the RIRs and the NRO. > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 13/10/2014 10:57 am, Guru Acharya wrote: >> > The list comprises of brilliant and accomplished representatives. I >> > commend the CSCG Nomcom for its work. >> > >> > I'm curious to know whether the deliberations of the CSCG Nomcom are >> > transcribed or if the CSCG Nomcom mailing list is open for review so >> > that people who want to nominate themselves in the future are aware of >> > the baseline requirements. >> >> The requirements were sent around to all of the lists when we called for >> nominations (see thread "Call for nominations for civil society >> representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)" on 18 >> September), but there are strong privacy reasons why we wouldn't open up >> the deliberations about the respective merits of individual candidates >> to public review. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Global Policy Analyst >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> https://eff.org >> jmalcolm at eff.org >> >> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >> >> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 18:30:49 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:30:49 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> <543C13EA.5050705@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi Guru, I think there are MAG requirement already stated on the IGF website. While it's okay to have some other internal criteria aside that, I think it's important not to make them cast and stone because every individual will be at different level of experience. It will be good to always have a mix of already experienced+willing to learn folks on the MAG to allow for capacity building and good continuity. Just as a point for clarification, RIRs don't entirely rely on voting in their processes as they operate more on consensus basis with voting being the last resort. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Oct 2014 11:27, "Guru Acharya" wrote: > Just as a suggestion, is it possible to create objective criteria for > future selections, which is open to review. > > For example, for every previous IGF attendance, the person gets a +1 mark; > for every panel the person has spoken on, he gets a +1 mark; for active > participation on the coalition mailing list he gets certain marks; > possibly, extra marks for being from a developing country. > > These marks could then be totaled. There should be no privacy concerns in > making such objective evaluation public. > > I understand the limitations of objective evaluation; but I feel > transparency is more important than the subjective criteria that raises > privacy concerns. > > Voting could be another option for ensuring transparency but I figure > voting doesn't have legitimacy in a multi-stakeholder environment except > for the RIRs and the NRO. > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 13/10/2014 10:57 am, Guru Acharya wrote: >> > The list comprises of brilliant and accomplished representatives. I >> > commend the CSCG Nomcom for its work. >> > >> > I'm curious to know whether the deliberations of the CSCG Nomcom are >> > transcribed or if the CSCG Nomcom mailing list is open for review so >> > that people who want to nominate themselves in the future are aware of >> > the baseline requirements. >> >> The requirements were sent around to all of the lists when we called for >> nominations (see thread "Call for nominations for civil society >> representatives for the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory group (MAG)" on 18 >> September), but there are strong privacy reasons why we wouldn't open up >> the deliberations about the respective merits of individual candidates >> to public review. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Global Policy Analyst >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> https://eff.org >> jmalcolm at eff.org >> >> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 >> >> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 14 05:54:08 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:54:08 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] JNC statement to ITU PP Message-ID: <20141014115408.0ea9d85c@quill> Dear all JNC's Statement to the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union is now available at http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/ITU_PP_2014.pdf Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 14 10:14:19 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:44:19 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] US style Multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <543B7FC3.1090501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <543D2FBB.20609@itforchange.net> On Monday 13 October 2014 11:39 PM, David Cake wrote: > Seemed to almost entirely be a criticism of the US govts hypocrisy in > talking up its commitment to multi-stakeholderism while simultaneously > pursuing lobbyist led goals by other means. > As a criticism of US govt hypocrisy, its fine. Thanks David, that was the primary purpose of the posting. > As a criticism of multi-stakeholderism, its incoherent. If it is just incoherence that is your problem, you may like to read the following rather well argued and supported critique of multistakeholderism (MSism) "State of Davos: The camel's nose in the tents of global governance" http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/state_of_davos_chapter.pdf What is interesting is that it critiques practically every currently practised aspect of MSism in the global IG space, without ever referring to IG. Shows how MSism is not some special state of governance associated with the Internet's oft-claimed 'special nature'. It was not even invented by the IG guys... It was invented by hard neolibs of Davos kind, for obvious reasons. This is a governance model proposed by the 1 % , which IG civil society, for a variety of reasons, has fallen prey to. Equal footing MSism that actually aspires to participate equally in public policy decision making came to the IG space after it begun to get spoken in the WEF, especially in the Global Redesign Initiative of the WEF. I think that it started to make clear claims in the IG space around 2009-10. Till then people were mostly just seeking/ ensuring no 'new' policy development or no 'new' policy institution development. It is post Davos theorisations of the Global Redesign Initiative kind that the brave new claim begun to be made in the IG space that corporates should actually participate in public policy decision making as equals. The recent misadventures of IG MSism towards Davos and WEF were rather an obvious thing waiting to happen. They are the same thing, more or less, with some good spin applied here and there, which would be applied right now since the first - over brash - effort of Davos to take over the global IG space suffered some set back. It was just a tactical mistake. It will be corrected. Powers are with them! Happy reading.. parminder > > I particularly like the way it says we should have open and > transparent negotiation - and then in the next paragraph says we > should exclude Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc. Open, but only to > people they like? Essentially, advocating the same behaviour they just > decried in the US govt. Openness is like free speech -- you are either > for or against it, and if you are only in favour of it for people you > like, you aren't for it. > > And, of course, the author says it is terrible if there are back room, > secret negotiations - but also says lets exclude the largest > commercial organisations from open and transparent negotiations, > meaning non-public efforts would be their only option. Anyone think > that recipe works? > > But hey, look at the solution the author proposes - just change the > entire economy so most commercial organisations are organised as > workers collectives. Anyone else think that should be our focus for > action, just hope we can replace Facebook, Google, etc with workers > collectives? > > Cheers > > David > > On 13 Oct 2014, at 12:31 am, parminder > wrote: > >> A report in the Pirate Party International's magazine on what is >> calls as US style multistakeholderism.. >> >> http://piratetimes.net/democracy-and-hypocrisy-the-us-governments-multi-stakeholder-model/ >> >> >> parminder >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 Oct 14 11:37:31 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:37:31 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Call for feedback on two important IG issues... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Stephanie Borg Psaila" Date: Oct 14, 2014 11:26 AM Subject: Call for feedback on two important IG issues... To: Cc: Dear friends, We would like to invite you to share your thoughts on two very important and current issues in Internet governance - issues which you may have already thought about and discussed with you colleagues or in the community: *#1 Overcoming policy silos: *Across different countries and regions, stakeholders and policymakers often approach the same IG issues from various angles and policy routes. Parallel debates often take place, with the risk of policy incoherence and even turf battles among the forums discussing the same issues. So, how can we overcome policy silos or policy segregation? To arrive at possible solutions, we first need to understand how the policy process works in different countries by taking, as example, three areas: (a) data protection and privacy; (b) cybersecurity and cybercrime; (c) intellectual property rights. With this in mind, *please take part in the survey on policy silos , and contribute to the discussion forum . * *#2. A** on**e-s**top shop:* IG is a highly complex policy space with hundreds of actors addressing more than 50 different policy issues in a wide range of forums. So, to whom do we address our concerns? Which organisations do we get in touch with if we need information about different IG aspects? Where can we learn about the latest developments? A possible solution is the creation of a one-stop shop, or a ‘clearing house’, with the underlying aim of assisting players – especially governments and stakeholders from developing countries – in making better use of existing processes to help shape their own policies on national levels. The design is key: Should it be a new international Internet organisation, a global multistakeholder IG clearing house, a distributed governance system, or...? What functions should it have? *Please share your views on discussion forum .* Your contributions will be help us (a) identify approaches to overcome policy silos, and (b) make concrete proposals towards a clearing house. Needless to say, your contributions will be highly appreciated. The discussion is hosted by the Geneva Internet Platform , in preparation for the upcoming international conference, the Geneva Internet Conference . If you have any questions/comments, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks in advance, Stephanie -- Stephanie Borg Psaila DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu *The latest from Diplo...* *Join our Internet governance community at www.diplointernetgovernance.org ** * To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to igcbp+unsubscribe at diplomacy.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Wed Oct 15 05:07:38 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:37:38 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Secretary-General response to Members of Civil Society Message-ID: Dear all, The ITU has published today the Secretary General's response to the letter that was sent last week. Please see: http://newslog.itu.int/archives/648 Best, Anja -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Oct 15 05:26:17 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:26:17 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Secretary-General response to Members of Civil Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0679AC61-2CC8-460B-8DBF-B137AEF42591@varonferraz.com> Not a bad start, ah? :) Shall we keep pushing our transparency letter to Member States as well to have impact in plenary debates on openess? I think so, right? Congrats to all for this first step. best joana -- @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 On 15 October 2014 06:07:38 GMT-03:00, Anja Kovacs wrote: >Dear all, > >The ITU has published today the Secretary General's response to the >letter >that was sent last week. Please see: > >http://newslog.itu.int/archives/648 > >Best, >Anja > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 07:00:56 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:00:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Secretary-General response to Members of Civil Society Message-ID: Yes, +1 to Joana!
-------- Original message --------
From: Joana
Date:10/15/2014 5:26 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Anja Kovacs , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <"
Subject: Re: [bestbits] ITU Secretary-General response to Members of Civil Society
Not a bad start, ah? :) Shall we keep pushing our transparency letter to Member States as well to have impact in plenary debates on openess? I think so, right? Congrats to all for this first step. best joana -- @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 On 15 October 2014 06:07:38 GMT-03:00, Anja Kovacs wrote: Dear all, The ITU has published today the Secretary General's response to the letter that was sent last week. Please see: http://newslog.itu.int/archives/648 Best, Anja You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 10:15:00 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 10:15:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Webinar: Whom do I contact if I want to raise my IG concern? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephanie Borg Psaila Date: Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:08 AM Subject: Webinar: Whom do I contact if I want to raise my IG concern? To: igcbp at diplomacy.edu Dear friends, You may have heard that Diplo and the Geneva Internet Platform are organising an international conference in November: the Geneva Internet Conference . The preparatory process is very important, as discussions on key themes addressed by the conference are already taking place. Please join us next Monday 6th October at 11h GMT, for the second theme: *Whom do I contact if I want to raise my IG concern? *Discussions will then continue on the discussion platform. The first theme addressed 'How to overcome IG policy silos on national and global levels'; you can join the ongoing discussions here . The third theme will address 'Evidence and measurement in IG: What sort of data and numbers are we talking about?'. More details below or at http://giplatform.org/events/geneva-internet-conference-internet-governance-crossroads Hope to e-see you on Monday, Stephanie Dear colleagues, In our preparations for the Geneva Internet Conference, we organised the first preparatory webinar on ‘*How to overcome IG policy silos on national and global levels*’. The recording and digest are available at this link . Stay engaged in our online discussion. Take data protection and privacy as an example. In Geneva alone, within a distance of 2 kilometres, this issue is discussed in a number of international organisations and forums from a number of angles: the Human Rights Council (had its historical first session on online privacy), the WTO (digital economy aspects), the ISO (standards), the ITU (telecommunications policies), WIPO (intellectual property rights). And they’re discussed without these organisations necessarily talking to each other. Discussion on such a comprehensi topic is often kept inside policy silos. And this is only one example. On every level of policy-making from global to local we face the similar challenge of overcoming policy silos. Some of the questions that we will cover in a discussion forum include: To what extent is it possible to overcome policy silos? What practical approaches can be used to create IG policy coherence ‒ examples, case studies, anecdotes? Please share your views in the discussion forum and participate in our survey to map your experience. The online discussion builds on the first preparatory webinar for the Geneva Internet Conference . On Monday 6 October, our second conference theme will be discussed: * **Whom do I contact if I want to raise my IG concern?* Looking forward to seeing you online or in situ in Geneva. Also on Monday 6 October, the Geneva Press Club, in collaboration with la Mission Suisse, the Graduate Institute, UNIGE, the United Nations Geneva Office, le Club diplomatique and le Collegium International, would like to invite you to *Governance Monday: Switzerland and cyber-surveillance*, on 6 October with: Luc Recordon, Advocate, Conseiller aux Etats, Member of the Commission de la politique de sécurité (CPS); Richard Hill, The Internet Society Switzerland; and Diplo's Tereza Horejsova. More information at this link . And the day after - on 7 October, do not miss the opportunity to get your regular monthly update in the *Geneva webinar briefing on IG*. More information and registration at this link . With kind regards, Tereza Follow us on Twitter | Forward to a friend You're receiving this email because you expressed an interest in Geneva Internet Platform. [image: DiploFoundation] [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to igcbp+unsubscribe at diplomacy.edu. -- -- *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 ben_akin at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 08:08:19 2014 From: ben_akin at yahoo.com (Benjamin) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 05:08:19 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Representatives on IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <1D06A7E35B8542F5B9C834280691A8A4@Toshiba> <130FD74C-2369-408C-95B8-4D3E641E9F9A@eff.org> <28B626770ECD454CBA02882E28AE9E34@Toshiba> <543850B5.3010202@eff.org> Message-ID: <1413374899.74896.YahooMailNeo@web121802.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi All, These are amazing individuals and I am excited to have met some of them. I look forward to their tremendous contribution to the IGF agenda. Thank you Benjamin The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom Trust in the Lord with all ur heart!!!!! http://www.livingseed.org .....please click it Seek first the Kingdom of God On Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:54 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: This is an absolutely outstanding list of nominees! Thank you so much to all candidates for standing, and to the CSCG for coming up with such an impressive and balanced list of nominees. Also many congratulations to all those who have been nominated. If only we can get UNDESA to finally respect this year civil society's recommendations, I am sure that we will have a very strong representation of civil society's interests in the next year's MAG. It is really heartening to see that we can put forward such a strong yet varied list of names, and do so in unison. Finally, I also wanted to thank the outgoing civil society representatives, as well as Fatima, for all their hard work in the MAG over the years. You've been wonderful. Warm regards, Anja On 11 October 2014 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: The Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group (CSCG) is pleased to be able to inform you of our recommendations as regards civil society representation on MAG 2015. > > >As you know, CSCG is a "coalition of coalitions" of the major civil society groups involved in the internet governance arena and associated areas.(see details below). Our role in working together is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside bodies. >Nominations for 2015 MAG civil society representatives >After each of our coalition members published a Call for Nominations within their coalition, each member shortlisted the names from their individual coalition (if necessary) which would be further considered for endorsement. The CSCG Nominating Committee considered 29 names short-listed for final discussion, with the following criteria. >1. Past record of active engagement as part of civil society groups working on internet governance issues, acting or speaking out assertively on behalf of public interest concerns. > >2 Willingness and commitment to consult with and report back to CS networks (including beyond those focused on internet governance where appropriate) on MAG discussions. > >3. Previous attendee at IGF at a global or regional level. > >4. Willing, available and able to participate effectively and constructively in the MAG deliberations. > >In considering names, our nominating committee firstly considered the advice from the Secretariat that 10 people considered to be civil society representatives were ending their terms this year - an unusually high number on an annual basis. Accordingly, we have selected 10 names for new members as outlined below. >We recommend the following 10 names as the new representatives for civil society (in alphabetical order). Each will need to submit a full application with further details pertaining to their suitability as MAG members. >1. Sunil Abraham(India) >2. Renata Avila(Guatemala) >3. Oh Byoungil(South Korea) >4. John Dada(Nigeria) >5. Avri Doria (USA) >6. Stuart Hamilton (United Kingdom) >7. Lea Kaspar (Croatia). >8. Jak SM Kee(Malaysia). >9. Ephraim Percy Kenyanito (Kenya) >10. Virginia Paque(Venezuela) > We also considered the remaining representatives whose three year terms have not expired, and we conclude that the only civil society person whose term has not expired is Fatima Cambronero (Argentina), We consider Fatima to be an excellent representative, and have no hesitation in supporting the continuation of her term of engagement. Accordingly, we also endorse the continued involvement of Fatima Cambronero (Argentina) as the only remaining civil society representative carried forward to 2015 MAG. In doing so we note that there are no other continuing members of MAG who are civil society representatives. >In addition to the above names, the CSCG has considered a wide range of very talented civil society representatives it was not able to include in its recommendations. We are very thankful for all the applicants, despite their making our job much harder, and will advise the Secretariat that, should IGF require names of suitable and accomplished additional representatives in providing overall regional balance, we would be very pleased to provide additional names in confidence of further civil society people who could make an outstanding contribution to the 2015 MAG. > >We will be in contact with the selected CS representatives shortly to discuss some brief biographical details for our letter to the IGF Secretariat, and other details of their nominations. In the mean time, we thank everyone for their participation and co-operation in this exercise and believe that this effort has yielded some outstanding candidates to represent civil society. > >Sincerely > >2015 CSCG MAG Nominating Committee >Norbert Bollow, Just Net Coalition representative >Mawaki Chango, Internet Governance Caucus representative >Robin Gross, Non Commercial Stakeholders Group representative >Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Coalition representative >Chat Garcia Ramilo, Association for Progressive Communications representative >Ian Peter, Independent Chair >Note: Virginia Paque (Diplo Foundation) withdrew from Nominating Committee discussions before nominations were opened and criteria developed, as she intended to stand as a candidate. Mandeep Tiwana (Civicus) also did not participate in the Nominating Committee. > >Member Organisations of Internet Governance Civil Society Co ordination Group - brief descriptions >· Association for Progressive Communications, an international membership-based network founded in 1990 who work together in using ICTs to empower and support others to build strategic communities and promote easy and affordable access to a free and open internet. >· Best Bits, a network of civil society organisations from across the world, who come together to share and collaborate on individual and joint initiatives in support of human rights and other broadly shared civil society interests in Internet governance. >· Civicus, a global civil society alliance with over 1000 members in 120 countries >· Diplo Foundation, which has a focus on assisting participants from small and developing states to build the capacity to engage effectively in Internet Governance and diplomacy. Since 2003, Diploâs Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (IGCBP) has involved over 1500 professionals and activists from 163 states. >· Internet Governance Caucus, an organisation with over 200 organisational and individual members founded in 2004 to specifically address emerging internet governance issues. >· Just Net Coalition, formed in 2014, a global coalition with specific interests in democracy, human rights and social justice. >· Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, (NCSG) an organization of more than 400 non-commercial organizations and individuals who develop Internet policy through participation in ICANN's policy development process. NCSG promotes noncommercial interests in the formulation of ICANN policy including human rights, academic, development, educational, and cultural interests. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as 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 http://www.internetdemocracy.in/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 15 08:18:18 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:48:18 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] In-Reply-To: <137596733.12712.1413375055098.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n23> References: <137596733.12712.1413375055098.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n23> Message-ID: <543E660A.8050100@itforchange.net> A report on Indian statement at the UN. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Internet-cant-be-managed-as-private-property-India-tells-UN/articleshow/44822618.cms Indian representative said the international management of the internet should be "multilateral, transparent and democratic." "As a global common, cyberspace cannot be managed only as private property. The governance and architecture of internet should reflect its global and democratic nature," he said. (quotation ends) parminder On Wednesday 15 October 2014 05:40 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear Sala > > As a regular participant in the WSIS process I'd suggest you to have a > look in its archives : there a lots of stories about and around ICT4D, > one more enthousiastic than another,, under the auspices and with the > blessings of the ITU > > Because for these folks, ICT4D has become a storyteklling thematic. > > Please, enjoy ! > > Greetings > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ito alo can > > > > Message du 15/10/14 06:07 > > De : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] Request for Info [UNGA ICT for Development] > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > I would be grateful if anyone has any information about your > country positions within the UN General Assembly today on Agenda > Item 16 on ICT for Development. If you have any news, grateful if > you could send me a message offline. > > > > > I have information on the US's position but would like to know how > other members of the General Assembly are feeling or issues and > points raised. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 09:17:12 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:17:12 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Secretary-General response to Members of Civil Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes!!!! On Oct 15, 2014 6:57 AM, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" wrote: > Yes, +1 to Joana! > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Joana > Date:10/15/2014 5:26 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Anja Kovacs , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] ITU Secretary-General response to Members of Civil > Society > > Not a bad start, ah? :) > > Shall we keep pushing our transparency letter to Member States as well to > have impact in plenary debates on openess? I think so, right? > > Congrats to all for this first step. > > best > > joana > -- > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > On 15 October 2014 06:07:38 GMT-03:00, Anja Kovacs < > anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> The ITU has published today the Secretary General's response to the >> letter that was sent last week. Please see: >> >> http://newslog.itu.int/archives/648 >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 09:17:43 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:17:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Secretary-General response to Members of Civil Society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Let's also have a uniform tweet text and let's do a twitaco! :-) On Oct 15, 2014 6:57 AM, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" wrote: > Yes, +1 to Joana! > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Joana > Date:10/15/2014 5:26 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Anja Kovacs , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] ITU Secretary-General response to Members of Civil > Society > > Not a bad start, ah? :) > > Shall we keep pushing our transparency letter to Member States as well to > have impact in plenary debates on openess? I think so, right? > > Congrats to all for this first step. > > best > > joana > -- > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > On 15 October 2014 06:07:38 GMT-03:00, Anja Kovacs < > anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> The ITU has published today the Secretary General's response to the >> letter that was sent last week. Please see: >> >> http://newslog.itu.int/archives/648 >> >> Best, >> Anja >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 12:43:43 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:43:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Global Commission on Internet Governance issues a statement of support in advance of ITU meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Kevin Dias" Date: Oct 15, 2014 12:26 PM Subject: Global Commission on Internet Governance issues a statement of support in advance of ITU meeting To: "RAN Members" Cc: "Brenda Woods" *Communiqué* Global Commission on Internet Governance issues a statement of support in advance of ITU meeting *Seoul, South Korea – October 15, 2014* – The Global Commission on Internet Governance has concluded its meeting, hosted by the Maekyung Media Group, in Seoul, South Korea. Chaired by former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, the Commission makes the following statement in advance of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) plenipotentiary meeting to be held October 20 – November 7, 2014 in Bussan, South Korea: - Effective Internet governance lies in inclusive models in which the ITU has an important input to make to the multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet; - The Global Commission on Internet Governance strongly supports the ITU's unique role in promoting and improving access to telecommunication technologies and services across the globe, as well as performing critical technical functions such as standards setting and spectrum management; - The Commission hopes the meeting will allow a focus on shared global concerns relevant to that role; - The Commission looks forward to hearing the outcome of the ITU’s consideration of the need to move towards greater transparency and openness to the wider Internet community; - The Commission would welcome an opportunity to meet with the ITU leadership to discuss these issues. “A most productive meeting on a most important global issue," says Carl Bildt, Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance."I am pleased that the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting will be held in Bussan, South Korea, and want to communicate the above thoughts to them.” The Global Commission is a two-year initiative launched in January 2014 by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and Chatham House, and will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance. The next meeting of the Global Commission on Internet Governance will be held in Ottawa, Canada, from November 24 to 25, 2014. Over the course of the Commission, a series of research papers will be issued and publicly posted on its open website www.ourinternet.org. Members of the Global Commission on Internet Governance in attendance in Seoul included: - Carl Bildt - Gordon Smith - Pablo Bello - Pascal Cagni - Moez Chakchouk - Dae-Whan Chang - Michael Chertoff - Anriette Esterhuysen - Dorothy Gordon - Dame Wendy Hall - Fen Osler Hampson - Patricia Lewis - Sir David Omand - Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi - Nii Quaynor - Latha Reddy - Tobby Simon - Paul Twomey - Pindar Wong For more information on the Global Commission on Internet Governance, including its twenty-nine commissioners and thirty-five research advisers, please visit: www.ourinternet.org. Follow the Commission on Twitter @OurInternetGCIG. *MEDIA CONTACT:* Kevin Dias, Communications Specialist, CIGI Tel: 519.885.2444, ext. 7238, Email: kdias at cigionline.org *The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)* is an independent, non-partisan think tank on international governance. Led by experienced practitioners and distinguished academics, CIGI supports research, forms networks, advances policy debate and generates ideas for multilateral governance improvements. Conducting an active agenda of research, events and publications, CIGI’s interdisciplinary work includes collaboration with policy, business and academic communities around the world. CIGI was founded in 2001 by Jim Balsillie, then co-CEO of Research In Motion (BlackBerry), and collaborates with and gratefully acknowledges support from a number of strategic partners, in particular the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario. For more information, please visit www.cigionline.org. *Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs,* is based in London. Chatham House’s mission is to be a world-leading source of independent analysis, informed debate and influential ideas on how to build a prosperous and secure world for all. The institute: engages governments, the private sector, civil society and its members in open debates and confidential discussions about significant developments in international affairs; produces independent and rigorous analysis of critical global, regional and country-specific challenges and opportunities; and offers new ideas to decision-makers and -shapers on how these could best be tackled from the near- to the long-term. For more information, please visit www.chathamhouse.org. -30- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2014-10-15 - Global Commission on Internet Governance Seoul Communiqué.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 158805 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ekenyanito at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 15:03:31 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:03:31 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Polite Reminder: Invitation Wed 13:15 PDT cross-community discussion on Human Rights in ICANN Message-ID: <543EC503.3040603@gmail.com> Today Wednesday, from 13:14 to 14:45 PDT there will be an open and (hopefully) cross-constituency discussion in Room Encino (flyer attached) to talk about some aspects of ICANN policies related to human rights and to think about the next steps of how to operationalize this discussion on a more sustainable way. Possibile key questions for discussion: 1. To what extent is ICANN’s Applicant Guidebook in compliance with the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association? 2. To what extent are ICANN’s policies and procedures in compliance with standards of non-discrimination? 3. To what extent are ICANN’s policies and procedures in compliance with the right to privacy and personal data protection? 4. What are the respective roles and responsibilities of ICANN and of governments for the protection of human rights online? 5. What is needed to enhance accountability for human rights protection within ICANN? Incase of any questions please feel free to reach out to Niels ten Oever, Head of Digital Article 19. -- Best Regards, ​​ *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito @ekenyanito Skype: ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DGI_2014_12E Report ICANN and Human Rights updated 5 Oct 2014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 543700 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20141013 community discussion human rights ICANN51 v2.3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 41440 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Oct 15 16:01:14 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 07:01:14 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Platform competition Message-ID: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> This is a highly interesting article about the work of Nobel Prize winning economist Jean Tirole and how the concept of platform competition relates to internet markets. It explains how Google and Facebook can make enormous profits and dominate markets while offering their products free of charge. Similar issues exist in some other industries, but this article concentrates on Internet. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6968423/jean-tirole-platform-competition To quote “And an important question for the world going forward is to how to think about regulating that kind of market. Since Google doesn't charge its mass customer base anything at all, you're never going to find evidence of monopoly power in price hikes.” As Mark Rotenberg comments, “The key insight is not no regulation but different regulation. This is also why competition law and privacy law need to be updated not ignored.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Oct 15 16:53:28 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 07:53:28 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Platform competition In-Reply-To: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> References: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> Message-ID: Just a bit more on this reading on - Wikipedia provides a good article and other examples of two-sided markets here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market which helps to clarify the issues. Another quote One takeaway from Tirole's work on regulation in general is that to a greater extent than people appreciate, policy problems sometimes exist because the questions are genuinely difficult rather than because policymakers are corrupt or feckless. And it seems that one reason why the questions are genuinely difficult is that regulatory regimes were written in an era where such problems did not really exist. We don’t have laws which are applicable. And often we don’t have legislators who understand the nature of the problems. (and, sure, we don’t have the will to introduce new laws or amend them either). Ian From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Platform competition This is a highly interesting article about the work of Nobel Prize winning economist Jean Tirole and how the concept of platform competition relates to internet markets. It explains how Google and Facebook can make enormous profits and dominate markets while offering their products free of charge. Similar issues exist in some other industries, but this article concentrates on Internet. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6968423/jean-tirole-platform-competition To quote “And an important question for the world going forward is to how to think about regulating that kind of market. Since Google doesn't charge its mass customer base anything at all, you're never going to find evidence of monopoly power in price hikes.” As Mark Rotenberg comments, “The key insight is not no regulation but different regulation. This is also why competition law and privacy law need to be updated not ignored.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 mishi at softwarefreedom.org Wed Oct 15 17:05:49 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:05:49 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] UN Report on Human Rights and Terrorism In-Reply-To: References: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> Message-ID: <543EE1AD.9020609@softwarefreedom.org> “There is an urgent need for states to revise national laws regulating modern forms of surveillance to ensure that these practices are consistent with international human rights law. “The absence of clear and up-to-date legislation creates an environment in which arbitrary interferences with the right to privacy can occur without commensurate safeguards. Explicit and detailed laws are essential for ensuring legality and proportionality in this context.” https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/10/15/un-report-human-rights-terrorism/ -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From kichango at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 17:37:32 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:37:32 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Platform competition In-Reply-To: References: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> Message-ID: Oh I see... So because it takes time for the fullness of a new reality to emerge, and even more time for the not-so-quickly-evolving human mind to grasp that new reality, the naysayers (or status-quoers) would tell us: "you guys just can't get it!" (the almighty technology, that is)... so "forget it!... you're just messing things up."... Or "you're being 'ringard'! (all the contrary of 'avant-gardist'... being 'arriere-gardist' in other words), etc. etc. True, if it ain't broke don't fix it... Question is, who gets to say it's broke or it ain't? Because all reality is human reality, or it isn't. So goes authority. ;) Thanks, Ian for sharing. Hasta la vista, Mawaki On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Just a bit more on this reading on - > > Wikipedia provides a good article and other examples of two-sided markets > here > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market > > which helps to clarify the issues. > > Another quote > > One takeaway from Tirole's work on regulation in general is that to a > greater extent than people appreciate, policy problems sometimes exist > because *the questions are genuinely difficult* rather than because > policymakers are corrupt or feckless. > > > And it seems that one reason why the questions are genuinely difficult > is that regulatory regimes were written in an era where such problems did > not really exist. We don't have laws which are applicable. And often we > don't have legislators who understand the nature of the problems. (and, > sure, we don't have the will to introduce new laws or amend them either). > > Ian > > > > > *From:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:01 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Platform competition > > This is a highly interesting article about the work of Nobel Prize > winning economist Jean Tirole and how the concept of platform competition > relates to internet markets. It explains how Google and Facebook can make > enormous profits and dominate markets while offering their products free of > charge. Similar issues exist in some other industries, but this article > concentrates on Internet. > > > http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6968423/jean-tirole-platform-competition > > To quote "And an important question for the world going forward is to how > to think about regulating that kind of market. Since Google doesn't charge > its mass customer base *anything at all*, you're never going to find > evidence of monopoly power in price hikes." > > > As Mark Rotenberg comments, "The key insight is not no regulation but > different regulation. This is also why competition law and privacy law need > to be updated not ignored." > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 11:08:49 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 11:08:49 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] great text on "The Internet Balkanization Fragmentation" By Sergio Alves Message-ID: *"**The Internet Balkanization Fragmentation**"* *http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/internet-balkanization-fragmentation * The text addresses some of the definitions and origins of the term "Internet Balkanization." Drawing upon U.S. constitutional law and interstate commerce regulations, it argues that the term also carries strong connotations on the realms of jurisdiction and commerce. The text adds examples of how this effect affects the businesses of creative companies that are exploring innovative markets in the United States, and suggests that the term "Internet Balkanization" should not be used in the context of international negotiations of Internet Governance, due to its pejorative connotations and misleading implications. -- -- *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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 17:41:45 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:41:45 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Platform competition In-Reply-To: References: <601FE8B306254B7584758A8B08FFDD81@Toshiba> Message-ID: <02f301cfe8c0$d3338e90$799aabb0$@gmail.com> And of course we have platforms (corporate monopolists) who use their wealth and power to tip the scales (of regulation/non-regulation) in their own favour. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:53 PM To: Ian Peter; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Platform competition Just a bit more on this reading on - Wikipedia provides a good article and other examples of two-sided markets here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market which helps to clarify the issues. Another quote One takeaway from Tirole's work on regulation in general is that to a greater extent than people appreciate, policy problems sometimes exist because the questions are genuinely difficult rather than because policymakers are corrupt or feckless. And it seems that one reason why the questions are genuinely difficult is that regulatory regimes were written in an era where such problems did not really exist. We don’t have laws which are applicable. And often we don’t have legislators who understand the nature of the problems. (and, sure, we don’t have the will to introduce new laws or amend them either). Ian From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Platform competition This is a highly interesting article about the work of Nobel Prize winning economist Jean Tirole and how the concept of platform competition relates to internet markets. It explains how Google and Facebook can make enormous profits and dominate markets while offering their products free of charge. Similar issues exist in some other industries, but this article concentrates on Internet. http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6968423/jean-tirole-platform-competition To quote “And an important question for the world going forward is to how to think about regulating that kind of market. Since Google doesn't charge its mass customer base anything at all, you're never going to find evidence of monopoly power in price hikes.” As Mark Rotenberg comments, “The key insight is not no regulation but different regulation. This is also why competition law and privacy law need to be updated not ignored.” _____ ____________________________________________________________ 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 jmalcolm at eff.org Wed Oct 15 20:44:21 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:44:21 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Draft IGF contribution for comment Message-ID: <543F14E5.7030804@eff.org> As discussed in a previous thread (see 25 September, sorry for the delay) I've started to put together a draft sign-on response to this call on the IGF's website: > All stakeholders are invited to submit by *27 October 2014* written > contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking > forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, > schedule and themes. The written contributions will be synthesized > into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and > MAG meetings of 1-3 December. Please send all contributions to > takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org . It aims mostly just to collect together and reference some points from previous submissions, but there are a few new points based on my personal observations about the new innovations (mainly Best Practice Forums) in Istanbul. I have this text on a pad, but to avoid a free-for-all where we lose track of edits, please contact me if you'd like to join a fluid working group to work on the text. Or you can just reply on or off-list with your suggestions. I propose we should aim to finalise the text within a week, ie. by 23 October, so that we have a few days to collect endorsements before submitting to the IGF Secretariat. Here's the current draft: *Introduction* There is broad support within civil society for the continuation of a reformed and strengthened IGF.[0] At the same time, it is undeniable that the almost decade-long evolution of the IGF has been very slow and cautious, in comparison to other fora and events such as NETmundial.[1] This may have spurred the development of a number of other meetings and initiatives which, on some level, compete with the IGF. Whilst this diversity of initiatives can be positive, there is also the risk that too many of them may sap energy and attention from the IGF itself, which has a particular impact on civil society whose resources to participate in multiple initiatives is the most constrained. This effect could be minimised if the IGF would be more responsive to suggestions that stakeholders have made, often repeatedly,[1] to address observed deficits in the IGF's structure and format. One of the difficulties is that there is really no "IGF" to effectively evaluate and implement these suggestions; there is a Secretariat, with limited resources and a narrow self-assessed mandate to effect structural changes to the IGF, and there is a MAG which, overall, considers itself a programme committee only and is similarly reluctant to depart from established structures and formats. The IGF would benefit from the appointment of a new, charismatic and visionary Executive Coordinator, with multi-stakeholder support, to personally evangelise for and drive the necessary changes. But in the interim, it would also be possible for the periodic open consultation meetings to be facilitated - perhaps by an independent professional - in a way that is more open to blue-sky thinking, rather than being limited to a narrow analysis of the annual meeting themes and the like. Even the present consultation, which is limited to "format", "schedule" and "themes", reveals a certain narrowness of thinking in this regard. It does not lend itself very well to suggestions about the structural evolution of the IGF that might allow it to more fully execute its mandate, such as significant changes to its management structure,[1] the execution of a coordinating function,[2] or the establishment of issue-specific multistakeholder working groups[2]. *Format* Perhaps the most significant departure from previous practice at the Istanbul meeting was the new Best Practice Forum mechanism. This was effectively a compromise between the call by many for outputs from the IGF, and the reluctance of others for the IGF to adopt processes that could produce such outputs by consensus. A result of this compromise is that since the outcome documents (once they are released) do not represent a consensus, they may not be regarded as particularly persuasive or useful by external governance bodies. More effective use could have been made of the academic community to contribute towards the development of the draft best practice recommendations, rather than expecting a self-selected multi-stakeholder group (and in practice, only a few individuals within the group) to develop these. The most distinctive contribution of a multi-stakeholder group is not its technical expertise in developing policy options, but rather the legitimacy that it provides by bringing multiple perspectives to bear on the task of deciding between those options. Another relatively new practice, first adopted for the Bali meeting and repeated at the Istanbul meeting, was the call to the community for suggestions of policy questions to be addressed at the meeting. All of these - 49 in Bali and 31 in Istanbul - were simply collected and passed on to session organisers. This was not effective in practice and should not be repeated. Instead, a more collaborative process of developing a smaller list of pressing policy problems (like the five selected for the Best Practice Forums) should be used. Despite various proposals made from time to time,[1] the IGF has yet to experiment with any large-scale, participatory and deliberative session format aimed towards the development of consensus resolutions on policy issues, somewhat like the NETmundial process, which was a combination of online and face-to-face work utilising both small and large multi-stakeholder groups. The IGF should draw on the services of a specialist in participatory event organisation to experiment with this type of session format.[3] *Schedule* The scheduling of the IGF should cover the full year, including timelines for working groups to develop concrete proposals to be taken further at the IGF. This would give it the capacity to sustain a work programme between meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern. Such a reform would add much value for online participants, essentially providing an online and intersessional equivalent of the annual IGF meeting. Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in the IGF, because they are not granted the same status as those who attend the face-to-face meetings.[1] The workshop proposal review process remains flawed. Workshops are partly scored based on whether panelists are confirmed to attend, but in many cases panelists' attendance is contingent on the workshop being approved, which creates a vicious circle, and also provides an incentive for workshop organisers to misstate whether panelists are confirmed. Workshop proponents are given no feedback on why their workshops were not approved, and overall the process is not conducted transparently. The face to face Best Practice Forums in Istanbul were not helped by being scheduled alongside workshops, with the result that most IGF participants did not take part in them. If the IGF is to develop outputs with the chance of gaining the broadest possible consensus and input from outside a small group of "usual suspects", as the Best Practice Forums aimed to do, then there should be some focussed time allocated for this, free of the distraction of other simultaneous meetings.[1] *Themes* In general, the IGF should address policy questions that are controversial and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other multi-stakeholder mechanism for global coordination. It should avoid themes that are too broadly framed like "openness" and "security" that are not grounded in any specific real-life context. The national IGFs should feed issues into the regional IGFs which should in turn feed issues into the Global IGF so that the the issues at the global level in part reflect the concerns and challenges raised by the national and regional IGFs -- a reporting in session by IGFs (as is currently the case) is inadequate.[1] We propose that the overall theme of the 2015 IGF meeting should be "Internet governance for sustainable development and promotion of human rights". We are conscious that some governments do not approve of an explicit mention of human rights in the IGF's overall theme. As the IGF is not a conventional multilateral body but a multi-stakeholder one, we do not believe that a few governments should be able to exercise a veto in this case. As the NETmundial Principles amply demonstrate, there is rough consensus around the centrality of human rights to Internet governance, and this ought to be reflected in the overall theme for the 2015 meeting. *Conclusion* The IGF is in a unique position to democratise participation in Internet governance, by acting as both a coordinating mechanism to connect stakeholders to external Internet governance processes, and also as a policy venue in its own right where emerging or orphan issues can be addressed and consensus-based solutions found and documented. But the IGF has been hampered in fulfilling its potential by its lack of structures and processes appropriate to the execution of these tasks. To change this will require both bold leadership to drive the required reforms to the IGF (most of which have been well documented by the UN CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements as well as in the NETmundial Statement.[4]), along with a stronger resource base to implement those reforms. The IGF's present lack of either of these presents it with a chicken-and-egg dilemma. However as a first step, we strongly encourage UNDESA to forthwith appoint a new high-level Executive Coordinator to the IGF who can prioritise the implementation of the necessary reforms. [0] http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/ [1] http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/ [2] http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/ [3] http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ [4] http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/ -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Fri Oct 17 15:14:58 2014 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 21:14:58 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [Help]after a successfully signed ITU transparency letter, let's advocate for it?? In-Reply-To: <543C4179.7000603@apc.org> References: <036001cfe3cb$b025b080$10711180$@gp-digital.org> <036901cfe3cd$07ea2520$17be6f60$@gp-digital.org> <23FA87C8-E76B-4E17-AAB5-358F97B976DB@varonferraz.com> <543BBE01.302@varonferraz.com> <543BDF8C.5090501@digitaldissidents.org> <543C4179.7000603@apc.org> Message-ID: <54416AB2.3070703@digitaldissidents.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi all, I hope you're well!. The request for more transparency at the ITU is gaining steam! There was a response from the Secretary General to our letter [0], but we haven't won yet. Please sign up to the letter [1] and contact your delegation (if you haven't done so already). If you need the contact information of your delegation, please ping me (as 6 people from 3 different continents have already done!). And tweet with the hashtag #openITU Best, Niels [0] http://t.co/Ziag9QGTs5 [1] http://t.co/MHJ6aGfvYc Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 10/13/2014 11:17 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi all, > > There is a provisional participant list available on WCITLeaks: > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S14-PP-ADM-0002!!PDF-E.pdf > > It's not complete, but at least a start. Hopefully, an updated > version will be made available soon. > > Also, lots of proposals are available on WCITLeaks and through > Anatel: > http://www.anatel.gov.br/Portal/exibirPortalPaginaEspecial.do?acao=&codItemCanal=1950&codigoVisao=$visao.codigo&nomeVisao=$visao.descricao&nomeCanal=Comiss%F5es%20/%20Comit%EAs&nomeItemCanal=Confer%EAncia%20de%20Plenipotenci%E1rios%20de%202014%20(PP-14)&codCanal=423 > > Best, Deborah > > On 10/13/14 10:19 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote: >> Hi all, > >> If you don't know who your representative at the ITU is, drop me >> an email (mentioning your country) and I will send you the email >> address of your representative. > >> So please reach out to your country delegate with the letter: >> http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency/ > >> And tweet it under the hashtag #openITU > >> Let's Open Up the ITU ! > >> Best, > >> Niels > >> Niels ten Oever Head of Digital > >> Article 19 www.article19.org > >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >> 68E9 > >> On 10/13/2014 04:56 AM, Joana Varon wrote: >>> Dear all, > >>> As Lea has mentioned below, the letter asking for ITU >>> transparency was sent to the Secretariat and remains open for >>> signatures at the Best Bits platform: >>> http://bestbits.net/busan-transparency. Therefore, signatures >>> keep coming in (thanks for those who have already signed). But >>> a statement is not enough, its just the first step. > >>> As we have no public voice to raise these points at the >>> plenary of the ITU Plenipotentiary - PP, besides reaching the >>> Secretary General (who ultimately also cannot change the >>> rules), _*we need to influence country delegations to support >>> and improve the texts from draft resolutions* that already >>> exist and are asking for transparency.__ _ While countries who >>> have proposed theses draft resolutions (which most of us cannot >>> see because its information under ITU password protection!) are >>> already allies in the matter and could incorporate some of our >>> demands. On the other hand, people from countries which doesnt >>> have a position on this could also be strategic. Therefore, >>> being from any country and even if you are not going or dont >>> intend to be deeply engaged in the PP, just sending the >>> statement to your country delegation is already a huge help for >>> the cause of openness. > >>> Remember that, due to the dynamics of the Plenipot, most of the >>> CSO people participating at the PP has to be subscribed within >>> country delegations, therefore might have some diplomatic >>> constraints for doing outreach of CSO positions to other >>> countries, being able to bring these positions only to their >>> own delegation. Thats why any extra help on outreach to Member >>> States is truly welcomed = we need you!* ** So, t**his is the a >>> call:* * ** **a) Reach your country delegate: *ping ur >>> delegation at the ITU-PP on this (list of delegations is >>> available under ITU account, would be good if anyone could >>> point to a link where its public so people would find it easier >>> to send emails to the right person - I couldnt find it yet). To >>> make your engagement easier, a draft sample of an email to >>> deliver it to your representative is available here: >>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/letter2delegation (if you improve it >>> or translate it to other languages, please, also post in the >>> pad so you help the work of others from the same region as >>> you). > >>> *b) Tweet under the hashtag #openITU:* if you have delivered >>> the letter, and feel comfortable to, please, tweet about it >>> under the hashtag #OpenITU, so we can also create a little buzz >>> in social media. Example of a tweet: ITU transparency statement >>> was shared with "your_country" delegates #openITU >>> *http://tinyurl.com/oxamjjs*or even tweet it straight to your >>> delegates. ** Lets take advantage that the issue on >>> transparency is so important to raise substantial consensus >>> among many of us to have a little win. In return, those who are >>> going can - and lets be sure we do it - give a follow up to all >>> the lists we have engaged for signatures or requests like >>> this... so people dont get frustrated on signing papers with >>> the impressions it lead nowhere :) > >>> Currently, as far as I know, the main argument against opening >>> access to documents is $$$. As some have been arguing that >>> organizations apply for member$hip to have access to this >>> documents. Rationale questionable /per se/ and not strong >>> enough to justify blocking access to policy processes. Times >>> have changed, openness should be a rule. > >>> Hope it sounds like a (good/possible) plan. > >>> all the best > >>> joana > > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUQWqyAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp8G8H/3PYSuFBG7yDzuksFlUUl3Jz bhxwYTsA09oHSYiNmbJ9mrI90nCermfgs8y+gP2ELtK6jsIINnWDSXqStyLeOCa6 kFk1/fLh9IxNEzwikeg4bTPICjvDvi+IW7ej1j80NL6RS4IjYR1BwfaJ4UvofNZE Fo9Ow9BEj3kU1mOsdpI69GnDUhj/WgoSglp3S3rHx5OFO/bXwxRXJ2j16IRV2PEm 6aC+pC5HQqL0oXeXpqQKSBiROCBqkC0yy2hXtBLt66i2ZfWM+EIFbt+/451IXgcA 0DpLZFadrEW3yBqqqxBs5y8ENmzmwQYrGn42mnvUtQ+IMJoor7Jf9mp0hpeO4zQ= =rqDt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Oct 19 15:25:40 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 06:25:40 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] MAG appointments Message-ID: Hi everyone, As you are probably aware, the Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus (CSCG) is submitting 10 names as civil society representatives to replace the 10 civil society people rotated out of the IGF MAG this year. This has been a combined effort of major coalitions working on internet governance issues. (Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net) It is important, not only for civil society but for the Internet Governance Forum as well, that the civil society representatives chosen for the MAG are credible, active, representative, and widely supported. This has not always been the case with civil society representation on the MAG; and one of the real lessons from NetMundial in 2014, which has ramifications for IGF in Brazil in 2015, is the importance of stakeholder involvement in establishment of representation. A combined effort from major civil society groups making nominations is new, for both the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA, who will be making the decisions. We want to make sure that they realise that this effort is credible, widely supported, and should be given strong consideration in determining civil society representation. We have established a good relationship with the IGF Secretariat as regards this, but I would suggest that any of you who have strong relationships with people who will be making these decisions, or have connections with people who may influence this process, to contact them within the next week expressing your support for the 10 civil society nominees and the role of CSCG in co ordinating civil society appointments – a role already established in the NetMundial and 1Net initiative processes. This is a key time to do this – it is important for the decision makers to know that the civil society combined efforts here are credible and widely supported, and anything you can do to assist this would be much appreciated. Please feel free to contact me personally if you would like more information or have suggestions on key people outside of the Secretariat we should make contact with. Many Thanks, Ian Peter (Independent Chair, CSCG) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Oct 19 19:27:09 2014 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 19:27:09 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] MAG appointments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A correction - CSCG stands for Civil Society Coordination Group, NOT Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus. A very flattering mistake, but still a mistake :-) Deirdre (Co-coordinator IGC) On 19 October 2014 15:25, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi everyone, > > As you are probably aware, the Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus > (CSCG) is submitting 10 names as civil society representatives to replace > the 10 civil society people rotated out of the IGF MAG this year. This > has been a combined effort of major coalitions working on internet > governance issues. (Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net) > > It is important, not only for civil society but for the Internet > Governance Forum as well, that the civil society representatives chosen for > the MAG are credible, active, representative, and widely supported. This > has not always been the case with civil society representation on the MAG; > and one of the real lessons from NetMundial in 2014, which has > ramifications for IGF in Brazil in 2015, is the importance of stakeholder > involvement in establishment of representation. > > A combined effort from major civil society groups making nominations is > new, for both the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA, who will be making the > decisions. We want to make sure that they realise that this effort is > credible, widely supported, and should be given strong consideration in > determining civil society representation. > > We have established a good relationship with the IGF Secretariat as > regards this, but I would suggest that any of you who have strong > relationships with people who will be making these decisions, or have > connections with people who may influence this process, to contact them > within the next week expressing your support for the 10 civil society > nominees and the role of CSCG in co ordinating civil society appointments – > a role already established in the NetMundial and 1Net initiative processes. > > This is a key time to do this – it is important for the decision makers to > know that the civil society combined efforts here are credible and widely > supported, and anything you can do to assist this would be much appreciated. > > Please feel free to contact me personally if you would like more > information or have suggestions on key people outside of the Secretariat we > should make contact with. > > > > Many Thanks, > > > > > > Ian Peter (Independent Chair, CSCG) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Oct 19 19:32:59 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:32:59 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: MAG appointments Message-ID: Oops - thanks for the correction De. I should have coffee before any early morning postings Deirdre Williams wrote: >A correction - CSCG stands for Civil Society Coordination Group, NOT Internet >Governance Civil Society Caucus. A very flattering mistake, but still a >mistake :-) >Deirdre >(Co-coordinator IGC) > >On 19 October 2014 15:25, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> As you are probably aware, the Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus >> (CSCG) is submitting 10 names as civil society representatives to replace >> the 10 civil society people rotated out of the IGF MAG this year. This >> has been a combined effort of major coalitions working on internet >> governance issues. (Best Bits, IGC, APC, Diplo, NCSG, and Just Net) >> >> It is important, not only for civil society but for the Internet >> Governance Forum as well, that the civil society representatives chosen for >> the MAG are credible, active, representative, and widely supported. This >> has not always been the case with civil society representation on the MAG; >> and one of the real lessons from NetMundial in 2014, which has >> ramifications for IGF in Brazil in 2015, is the importance of stakeholder >> involvement in establishment of representation. >> >> A combined effort from major civil society groups making nominations is >> new, for both the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA, who will be making the >> decisions. We want to make sure that they realise that this effort is >> credible, widely supported, and should be given strong consideration in >> determining civil society representation. >> >> We have established a good relationship with the IGF Secretariat as >> regards this, but I would suggest that any of you who have strong >> relationships with people who will be making these decisions, or have >> connections with people who may influence this process, to contact them >> within the next week expressing your support for the 10 civil society >> nominees and the role of CSCG in co ordinating civil society appointments – >> a role already established in the NetMundial and 1Net initiative processes. >> >> This is a key time to do this – it is important for the decision makers to >> know that the civil society combined efforts here are credible and widely >> supported, and anything you can do to assist this would be much appreciated. >> >> Please feel free to contact me personally if you would like more >> information or have suggestions on key people outside of the Secretariat we >> should make contact with. >> >> >> >> Many Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter (Independent Chair, CSCG) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > >-- >“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at apc.org Sun Oct 19 22:44:48 2014 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 22:44:48 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Webcast for ITU plenipot Message-ID: <54447720.8090100@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Dear all, In case of interest, here's the link for the webcast for the ITU plenipotentiary meeting: https://www.itu.int/webcast/live/pp2014 available in 6 official UN languages. Kind regards, Deborah -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJURHcfAAoJEPeieloNaneN2IMQAIUo39WJucZ2Op0/0U6Q5bHR ipFrXw5RnDyQRxn8prBpOXigz5F3oyQx/erKDBBNQcMyiXxXTTHvO3sb1WI2uylD tKLS7bk2RVUR9iPIXu51SJ4DgzgbmuQx5iujqQmAYm3s8Y4MfFvlL0pfm8Xv6Yd2 3Y5RYwyyduOcoJ8TXAmhTdNGaj5Il1W/16VK6agPc3UcKCUKgpAUqfe2+Ae9ZdeD cTuXPW3GfoELMDsuWMFzO/4DhaEjTcxacVFrorIsmlkBBPVtsJoergYoOOwusivK NmDChlo70ZxCUl6/FYx+FPujJLa9+oxm+JOEIPWFg4PHiAQbG9zzd7eC22Igfhoa 4u8Go6g2Nyh7hYdOKK57Sv8m7Q34NNDLwe97bLRCe285NeXFdMhY34thmEuzQYMT YgRIDpuw8Yuk6xJDD0sa7RuzmErutiN32IAexDxYFnbNiADlXMQKXtUMWExeXhMf JTA+xJF95L2wcWJiRuz1G1mElMgVCTbZrsby4S1OTxrrFGrW2SC1xTSORxApEuD1 WHiBLjRds0isQx8ZglPHnvDP8AGDoEiA4HG/l3lJ2W31brDKhjRG18AmbzAw+NNp WWYJ0BQlGESPI5aQOYL0qi6cnpQFqLAuaBrFnNgliPdvfflqJK3YUfs5glSYERw9 dd24tQjF1nSydWtMZ94F =SWKv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From anne at webfoundation.org Mon Oct 20 16:38:08 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:38:08 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations Message-ID: Dear colleagues As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to develop positions on some of the most important substantive issues before the conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit. Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations endorsing. If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. Best wishes 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 16:59:46 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:59:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just to clarify - you can endorse the statement at the BestBits platform. But since we will also send a pdf version to the ITU Secretariat, you can send me your logos* tomorrow by12pmEST* so I can also add it to that pdf version. Thank you On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Dear colleagues > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to come > up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the open > letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process itself, > which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to > develop positions on some of the most important substantive issues before > the conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 page > lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the next 24 hours > at: > > http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes > > The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on > which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the ITU's > restrictions on document access and because many Member States submitted > their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process > has taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. > > It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we are > opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone has a > red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them from > signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose > an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other members of > the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit. > > Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting > these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil > society in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations > endorsing. > > If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo to > Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) > tomorrow, 21 Oct. > > Best wishes > 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 > -- -- *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 jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Oct 20 19:01:44 2014 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:01:44 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Draft IGF contribution for comment In-Reply-To: <543F14E5.7030804@eff.org> References: <543F14E5.7030804@eff.org> Message-ID: <659F77C4-B43C-4572-8A7B-83D703CA3586@eff.org> Just a reminder to please send any comments this week on the draft "taking stock" text below to the IGF, or to let me know if you would like pad access to edit the text. Thanks. On Oct 15, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > As discussed in a previous thread (see 25 September, sorry for the delay) I've started to put together a draft sign-on response to this call on the IGF's website: > >> All stakeholders are invited to submit by 27 October 2014 written contributions taking stock of the Istanbul IGF meeting and looking forward to the IGF 2015 meeting, including suggestions on the format, schedule and themes. The written contributions will be synthesized into a paper that will form an input into the Open Consultations and MAG meetings of 1-3 December. Please send all contributions to takingstock2014 at intgovforum.org. > > It aims mostly just to collect together and reference some points from previous submissions, but there are a few new points based on my personal observations about the new innovations (mainly Best Practice Forums) in Istanbul. I have this text on a pad, but to avoid a free-for-all where we lose track of edits, please contact me if you'd like to join a fluid working group to work on the text. Or you can just reply on or off-list with your suggestions. > > I propose we should aim to finalise the text within a week, ie. by 23 October, so that we have a few days to collect endorsements before submitting to the IGF Secretariat. > > Here's the current draft: > > Introduction > > There is broad support within civil society for the continuation of a reformed and strengthened IGF.[0] At the same time, it is undeniable that the almost decade-long evolution of the IGF has been very slow and cautious, in comparison to other fora and events such as NETmundial.[1] This may have spurred the development of a number of other meetings and initiatives which, on some level, compete with the IGF. > > Whilst this diversity of initiatives can be positive, there is also the risk that too many of them may sap energy and attention from the IGF itself, which has a particular impact on civil society whose resources to participate in multiple initiatives is the most constrained. This effect could be minimised if the IGF would be more responsive to suggestions that stakeholders have made, often repeatedly,[1] to address observed deficits in the IGF's structure and format. > > One of the difficulties is that there is really no "IGF" to effectively evaluate and implement these suggestions; there is a Secretariat, with limited resources and a narrow self-assessed mandate to effect structural changes to the IGF, and there is a MAG which, overall, considers itself a programme committee only and is similarly reluctant to depart from established structures and formats. > > The IGF would benefit from the appointment of a new, charismatic and visionary Executive Coordinator, with multi-stakeholder support, to personally evangelise for and drive the necessary changes. But in the interim, it would also be possible for the periodic open consultation meetings to be facilitated - perhaps by an independent professional - in a way that is more open to blue-sky thinking, rather than being limited to a narrow analysis of the annual meeting themes and the like. > > Even the present consultation, which is limited to "format", "schedule" and "themes", reveals a certain narrowness of thinking in this regard. It does not lend itself very well to suggestions about the structural evolution of the IGF that might allow it to more fully execute its mandate, such as significant changes to its management structure,[1] the execution of a coordinating function,[2] or the establishment of issue-specific multistakeholder working groups[2]. > > Format > > Perhaps the most significant departure from previous practice at the Istanbul meeting was the new Best Practice Forum mechanism. This was effectively a compromise between the call by many for outputs from the IGF, and the reluctance of others for the IGF to adopt processes that could produce such outputs by consensus. A result of this compromise is that since the outcome documents (once they are released) do not represent a consensus, they may not be regarded as particularly persuasive or useful by external governance bodies. > > More effective use could have been made of the academic community to contribute towards the development of the draft best practice recommendations, rather than expecting a self-selected multi-stakeholder group (and in practice, only a few individuals within the group) to develop these. The most distinctive contribution of a multi-stakeholder group is not its technical expertise in developing policy options, but rather the legitimacy that it provides by bringing multiple perspectives to bear on the task of deciding between those options. > > Another relatively new practice, first adopted for the Bali meeting and repeated at the Istanbul meeting, was the call to the community for suggestions of policy questions to be addressed at the meeting. All of these - 49 in Bali and 31 in Istanbul - were simply collected and passed on to session organisers. This was not effective in practice and should not be repeated. Instead, a more collaborative process of developing a smaller list of pressing policy problems (like the five selected for the Best Practice Forums) should be used. > > Despite various proposals made from time to time,[1] the IGF has yet to experiment with any large-scale, participatory and deliberative session format aimed towards the development of consensus resolutions on policy issues, somewhat like the NETmundial process, which was a combination of online and face-to-face work utilising both small and large multi-stakeholder groups. The IGF should draw on the services of a specialist in participatory event organisation to experiment with this type of session format.[3] > > Schedule > > The scheduling of the IGF should cover the full year, including timelines for working groups to develop concrete proposals to be taken further at the IGF. This would give it the capacity to sustain a work programme between meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern. > > Such a reform would add much value for online participants, essentially providing an online and intersessional equivalent of the annual IGF meeting. Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in the IGF, because they are not granted the same status as those who attend the face-to-face meetings.[1] > > The workshop proposal review process remains flawed. Workshops are partly scored based on whether panelists are confirmed to attend, but in many cases panelists' attendance is contingent on the workshop being approved, which creates a vicious circle, and also provides an incentive for workshop organisers to misstate whether panelists are confirmed. Workshop proponents are given no feedback on why their workshops were not approved, and overall the process is not conducted transparently. > > The face to face Best Practice Forums in Istanbul were not helped by being scheduled alongside workshops, with the result that most IGF participants did not take part in them. If the IGF is to develop outputs with the chance of gaining the broadest possible consensus and input from outside a small group of "usual suspects", as the Best Practice Forums aimed to do, then there should be some focussed time allocated for this, free of the distraction of other simultaneous meetings.[1] > > Themes > > In general, the IGF should address policy questions that are controversial and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other multi-stakeholder mechanism for global coordination. It should avoid themes that are too broadly framed like “openness” and “security” that are not grounded in any specific real-life context. The national IGFs should feed issues into the regional IGFs which should in turn feed issues into the Global IGF so that the the issues at the global level in part reflect the concerns and challenges raised by the national and regional IGFs – a reporting in session by IGFs (as is currently the case) is inadequate.[1] > > We propose that the overall theme of the 2015 IGF meeting should be "Internet governance for sustainable development and promotion of human rights". We are conscious that some governments do not approve of an explicit mention of human rights in the IGF's overall theme. As the IGF is not a conventional multilateral body but a multi-stakeholder one, we do not believe that a few governments should be able to exercise a veto in this case. As the NETmundial Principles amply demonstrate, there is rough consensus around the centrality of human rights to Internet governance, and this ought to be reflected in the overall theme for the 2015 meeting. > > Conclusion > > The IGF is in a unique position to democratise participation in Internet governance, by acting as both a coordinating mechanism to connect stakeholders to external Internet governance processes, and also as a policy venue in its own right where emerging or orphan issues can be addressed and consensus-based solutions found and documented. But the IGF has been hampered in fulfilling its potential by its lack of structures and processes appropriate to the execution of these tasks. > > To change this will require both bold leadership to drive the required reforms to the IGF (most of which have been well documented by the UN CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements as well as in the NETmundial Statement.[4]), along with a stronger resource base to implement those reforms. The IGF's present lack of either of these presents it with a chicken-and-egg dilemma. However as a first step, we strongly encourage UNDESA to forthwith appoint a new high-level Executive Coordinator to the IGF who can prioritise the implementation of the necessary reforms. > > [0] http://bestbits.net/igf-statement-2014/ > [1] http://bestbits.net/igf-2014-submission/ > [2] http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/ > [3] http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/ > [4] http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/ > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://eff.org > jmalcolm at eff.org > > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 > > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 4 10:34:42 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 20:04:42 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet - whether to regulate it or not In-Reply-To: References: <5427ABEE.3050006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54300582.4030002@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 01 October 2014 02:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Now, why, when the UN can adopt a Model law of e-commerce, can we not > discuss and possibly adopt a Model Law on IP based telecommunication > and net neutrality. Can anyone answer this simple and obvious question > for me? Please, I am serious. > > No one can answer this question because it is based on a false > premise. But you provided your own answer anyway: > > >Because US tell us so. And so many of us are happy to take our > > > cues from the US, and its political and corporate allies. (Has it > > > anything to do with from where the money flows?) > > It is based on a false premise because: > > Here in the US of A, we are talking about nothing else but a new law > and/or regulation on net neutrality, it got 5 million public comments. > And the same federal regulatory agency, known as the FCC, has been > running a proceeding on the telephony-to-IP transition since January > https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-5A1.pdf > Milton, Throughout this email, you seamlessly move between UN based international law making and US law making, which may get forced on the world bec of the US's economic and technical might, as if there isnt any real substantive difference between the two... I would have been very surprised by this if I did not know that you know exactly what you are doing - which makes it simply very disappointing. Please, US cannot be doing global governance, and to the extent it does it has to be simply lamented and resisted. This is true of any country (in fact, any actor) who exercises such the greatest and the most concentrated illegitimate power, and it just happens to be the US at the present with regard to the 'global Internet'. (If you contest this fact, I am ready to discuss it.) In the circumstance, when I ask for global model laws in these other areas on the lines of the 1997 UN model law on e-com, your pointing to some law making exercises happening in the US bespeaks an US centric arrogance which is what I consider as very disappointing. I know you are a careful person, and you are doing this because, unfortunately, these global IG civil society forums allow you space to speak things which one cannot speak at almost any other civil society space, I mean, in any other area of CS work. In fact even with such views you are nominated to speak on the behalf of civil society at the IGF... Therefore, ones regrets are larger than just about what you say. > The dialogue you say doesn’t exist is transnational. I was under the > impression that there were half a dozen workshops on net neutrality at > this year’s IGF. I believe that the topic was debated extensively, if > inconclusively, at Netmundial. The European Commission has also been > discussing and acting on it. > When did I say there is no global discussion on net neutrality ? ... As for the resistance to it and the resources thrown in for that sake I have historical details of how an NN debate and position forming got resisted on the IGC list as well in the MAG, for years, before it was finally taken up this year, and then what went into how the debate got shaped for the main session of the IGF and so on... Yes, I know the European Commission as well as Council of Europe has been working on it, and I have participated especially in the latter's effort. > The word “net neutrality” is an American term > Oh, I keep forgetting that. We all must remain eternally grateful for such mercies. What would we be without the US. > and the current Presidential administration is on record as supporting > it. You probably learned the words “IP transition” from America, too. > Well, yes. How much ever may I like to, we are just not able to come off the colonial and post colonial yoke. Dont we still take everything of worth from the west? Perhaps you would next note that we are actually conversing in English that UK gave to the world.. > > So explain to me again how the evil empire is preventing everyone from > talking about such laws or regulations?? > Apart from US and its corporate allies being the chief instigators for filtering the debates at the IGF, that is not what I am talking about when I mention actual norms and larger policy making, even if just as model laws. You will agree that this cannot happen at the IGF, right. And of course US is the main party opposed to the UN taking up any norms or policy development work with regard to Internet related policies. Do you contest this statement. > I am serious, or at least as serious as one can be when dealing with > outlandish accusations. > > Is the basis of your political appeal now a shopworn anti-Americanism, > rather than a policy agenda that actually makes things better? > The US rules the global Internet, politically and economically . Any civil society actor whose chief aim is a better distribution of power (that at least is what civil society used to be) would naturally make the US as its chief target. But obvious. It is those who continually support the US's political and economic power on the Internet who must explain themselves. > > Keep in mind that “model laws” developed by the UN are significant > only insofar as they are adopted by national governments. > Yes . > > Which means, they have limited relevance when it comes to global > Internet governance issues. > Yes, indeed global governance needs more than model laws. That is just one part of what UN can do - I mean develop model laws as it did for e-com, but global Internet policies have to also be made by democratic global gov bodies. Meanwhile, there does exist a connection between the two. Harmonized national laws go a long way in effective global governance of the Internet. If you see the proposed function of the CIRP proposed by India in 2011, one of the key functions indeed is to harmonise national laws in this area, to the extent possible. If you have not heard of what harmonising national laws mean, just ask your government about trade and IP areas and what its consistent global efforts are in this regard. > As a thought experiment, ask yourself which has had more influence and > importance to the future of the Internet: the UNCITRAL model e > commerce law? > http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/electronic_commerce/1996Model.html > The India's IT Act, which is the default Internet law in India at present, mentions the UNCITRAL model e-com in its preamble, and presumably takes a lot from it. > Or the Clinton administration’s Framework for Global Electronic > Commerce, which provided the rationale for ICANN? > http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce/ > Yes, this one certainly had a much greater impact on the global Internet. But this is an illegitimate impact. I dont know why cant you distinguish between legitimate political/ legal / policy impact and illegitimate ones. You seem to be proposing that the power behind a law/ policy is the main consideration, and not its legitimacy. To take the colonial example again, the world still is suffering the years of bad work that colonial masters did, including having drawn arbitrary geo political boundaries (west asia being one key example). The still current and powerful impact of those acts do not make them legitimate in the first place, same for the Clinton Administration's Framework for Global Electronic Commerce. > If the latter proved more influential, is it because the evil empire > stopped everyone from talking about the topic and used Jedi mind > tricks to force it down our throats? Or was it because a globalized > approach proved to be more practical and suitable to the growth of the > internet than a fragmented, nation-based approach? > Yes, a political philosophy and policy framework was simply forced down everyone's throat along with a technology that was indeed very alluring and useful. That is exactly what happened, as I did say in a recent email to Barry on the IGC list. > If the neoliberal telecom competition and deregulation policies won > out in the 1980s and 1990s, was it because of US power, or was it > because the policies were fantastically successful at stimulating the > growth and penetration of the Internet and information and telecom > services and equipment, more so than the 70 years of national monopoly > that preceded it, and thus were imitated by country after country? > They were successful because the state owned telco infrastructure model was outdated. It was rightly replaced. But this is not the only lesson from history we have. We know the role of regulations in making telephony mainstream in the US, and then is triggering the software revolution... I am sure you need not be re taught that bit of history. In the same manner we know the positive role of global policy frameworks and regulation in many areas. Therefore, there have to be free market forces, and there have to be regulations. The problem is that the US, and you, seem to only want the former and not the latter. Unbounded markets without regulation (other than US enforced one over the whole world). That is a recipe for disaster. parminder > > These might be more “serious” and productive questions for people on > this list to answer > > Milton L Mueller > > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 21 06:46:44 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:16:44 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes there are many very important global Internet policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important Internet policy issues at the global level or some other democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows those who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the US based economic and political establishment, to carry on consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it. To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must answer these questions. The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first committee’s work is much less participative (of other stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process towards development of global principles and agreements and not a as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil society? Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (seefor instance, just the day before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to regulate global IP TV transmissions). Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of the economically and politically powerful... parminder On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Dear colleagues > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to > come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced > the open letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot > process itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and > harder task was to develop positions on some of the most important > substantive issues before the conference. The output of this second > phase of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available for > endorsement for the next 24 hours at: > > http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes > > The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals > on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the > ITU's restrictions on document access and because many Member States > submitted their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our > drafting process has taken us hard up against the start of the > Plenipot itself. > > It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we > are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however > someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that > prevents them from signing on, they should email me personally in the > next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will > consult the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to > accept this edit. > > Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not > presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf > of civil society in general but only on behalf of the specific > organisations endorsing. > > If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your > logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org > ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) > tomorrow, 21 Oct. > > Best wishes > 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Oct 21 08:18:24 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:18:24 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54464F10.8080900@wzb.eu> Hi all, I want to thank all the co-authors for this statement and express my support. I don't agree with Parminder's criticism that the statement fails to indicate who should take up responsibility for global IG issues. Instead the statement stresses the importance of multistakeholder appraoches. The part I find of the statement I find rather weak concerns the recommendations on net neutrality. Particulary the second paragraph and in that the last sentence don't make much sense to me. Since net neutrality is such an important issue I would like to encourage the authors responsbible for this paragraph to have another go at it. If you see a specific role for the ITU in supporting global interconnectivity and net neutrality, I would suggest describing it in concrete terms (and drop the part expressing your surprise and perhaps also the mission creep part). Jeanette Am 20.10.14 22:38, schrieb Anne Jellema: > Dear colleagues > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to > come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the > open letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process > itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder > task was to develop positions on some of the most important substantive > issues before the conference. The output of this second phase of our > work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available for endorsement > for the next 24 hours at: > > http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes > > The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on > which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the > ITU's restrictions on document access and because many Member States > submitted their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our > drafting process has taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot > itself. > > It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we > are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone > has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them > from signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to > propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other > members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit. > > Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting > these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil > society in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations > endorsing. > > If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo > to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org > ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) > tomorrow, 21 Oct. > > Best wishes > 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 > From anne at webfoundation.org Tue Oct 21 11:58:18 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:58:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable. In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate reading of its content: - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) level. - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges ahead. That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by Jeanette. I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find the common ground between differing positions. Best Anne On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill wrote: > I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his > comments. > > Best, > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]*On Behalf Of * > parminder > *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org; IRP > *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on > period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. > However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes there > are many very important global Internet policy issues, and then says that > the ITU should not take them up, but tells us nothing about who should take > them up. This becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political > governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the > documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its Global > Redesign Initiative). > > I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important Internet > policy issues at the global level or some other democratic global body > takes them up. However, it is not tenable that they be just left hanging > out there, which only allows those who have the greatest default power on > the Internet, mostly the US based economic and political establishment, > to carry on consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an > expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I > strongly oppose it. > > To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); > > Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing > countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global market > models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal > from the stand of all developing countries and all progressive civil > society at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of > the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that issue by > declaring that such things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory > framework, or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is > not clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express mandate > for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that > there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a > mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the > statement should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. > > Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a treaty > on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post Snowden. Just > today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how > little has really changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the > five eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct > of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up > and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is > there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must answer these > questions. > > The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN Gen > Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is quite > surprising becuase by all means, the first committee’s work is much less > participative (of other stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the > rationale here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see > when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now > the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but > remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the > expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this > issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks > of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. Progressive > civil society must take note rather than blindly signing on this rather > dangerous statement. > > The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security treaty > because there is no consensus on basic concepts and principles in the > area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area of climate change, and so > many other areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the > area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as > a part of a process towards development of global principles and agreements > and not a as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can > understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil society? > > Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet power > status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you where to do > either.... Supporting this statement in my view will simply be to support > the global Internet status quo.... > > Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of all > Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is very > problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global stage, the > dominant political and economic forces get a free reign, and the little > policy that needs to be made is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, > or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day > before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks > to regulate global IP TV transmissions). > > Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of the > economically and politically powerful... > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > > Dear colleagues > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to > come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the > open letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process > itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task > was to develop positions on some of the most important substantive issues > before the conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 > page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the next 24 > hours at: > > http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes > > The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on > which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the ITU's > restrictions on document access and because many Member States submitted > their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process > has taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. > > It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we are > opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone has a > red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them from > signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose > an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other members of > the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit. > > Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting > these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil > society in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations > endorsing. > > If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo to > Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) > tomorrow, 21 Oct. > > Best wishes > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org > > -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 22 00:06:25 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:36:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that > different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding > different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. > I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view > in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and > valuable. > > In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms > of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate > reading of its content: > > - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets > is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain > individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where > necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and > promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations that > have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net neutrality > regulation at national and regional (EU) level. > > - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take > responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the > "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global > governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for the > ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and collaboration > among UN agencies (including the ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and > refer several times to what we think are the ITU's critical roles in > addressing the huge challenges ahead. > > That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was > poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by > Jeanette. > > I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can > continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find > the common ground between differing positions. Dear Anne Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage on this discussion. But my present email will only make one point, about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which your email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that manner, but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political criticism in these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction and submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the world they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil society space, as in the conventional political space. However, for instance in India, which has a rather high level of professional in traditional political space, at least at the national level, political personalities are able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their political positions and counter positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil or any such thing. I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from a core political civil society background, and so I an really not talking about you.) I also say it because I and people that I work with feel that the present position that is being proposed on the BestBits platform a major political statement that we find extremely problematic and something that sets a solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and social justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest it, with all means at our disposal. I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above email. best regards parminder > > Best > Anne > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill > wrote: > > I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his > comments. > Best, > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org > ]*On Behalf Of > *parminder > *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > ; IRP > *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 > hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in > detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. > It says yes there are many very important global Internet > policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them > up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This > becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political > governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about > frequently in the documents of the World Economic Forum (read > for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). > > I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some > important Internet policy issues at the global level or some > other democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not > tenable that they be just left hanging out there, which only > allows those who have the greatest default power on the > Internet, mostly the US based economic and political > establishment, to carry on consolidating their power. This > statement for me is simply an expression of support for the > Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it. > > To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); > > Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from > developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies > unregulated global market models for global Internet > inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand > of all developing countries and all progressive civil society > at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was > one of the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to > close that issue by declaring that such things be best left to > free markets, with no regulatory framework, or even a > normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear > how even working on the interconnection issue, an express > mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the > ITU. It appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in > 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In the > circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement > should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. > > Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work > towards a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken > the world post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with > Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really > changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five > eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the > conduct of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or > have we simply given up and are ready to allow the powerful to > do what they may? Alternatively, is there any other solution > being thought of? Civil society must answer these questions. > > The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the > UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. > That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first > committee’s work is much less participative (of other > stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale > here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see > when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, > but right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the > first committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards > a cyber security treaty will require the expertise of ITU > which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. > Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance > bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and > unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather > than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. > > The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber > security treaty because there is no consensus on basic > concepts and principles in the area.... Is there a greater > consensus on the area of climate change, and so many other > areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the > area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and > principles emerge as a part of a process towards development > of global principles and agreements and not a as a pre > condition of them. This is universally known. One can > understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why > civil society? > > Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet > power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell > you where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my > view will simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... > > Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal > of all Internet policy related agenda from global governance > stage is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from > the global stage, the dominant political and economic forces > get a free reign, and the little policy that needs to be made > is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the > Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (seefor instance, just the > day before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on > how TPP seeks to regulate global IP TV transmissions). > > Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule > of the economically and politically powerful... > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF >> to try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU >> Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and >> participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of >> you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to >> develop positions on some of the most important substantive >> issues before the conference. The output of this second phase >> of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available >> for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: >> >> http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes >> >> The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference >> proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, >> both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and >> because many Member States submitted their proposals quite >> late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken >> us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. >> >> It is now very urgent to get this text in front of >> delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather >> than comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely >> can't live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, >> they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to >> propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult >> the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether >> to accept this edit. >> >> Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not >> presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or >> on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of >> the specific organisations endorsing. >> >> If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send >> your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org >> ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 >> EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. >> >> Best wishes >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org > > > > > -- > 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* > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 22 00:08:33 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:38:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54472DC1.9020909@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that > different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding > different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. > I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view > in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and > valuable. > > In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms > of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate > reading of its content: > > - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets > is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain > individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where > necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and > promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations that > have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net neutrality > regulation at national and regional (EU) level. No rational is offered why such work should be stopped at national and regional level, when almost in all major sectors, climate change, health, education, trade, IP and so on, we have global norms, principles and even treaties... If anything, the Internet is perhaps simply more 'inherently' global than these sectoral issues. Leaving it to national level simply allows the US to enforce its norms and law on the global Internet, leaving the developing countries on a take it or leave it position, and the regional aspect allows plurilateral bodies of the rich OECD, EU, CoE and others controlled by the rich, like the Trans Pacific Partnership, to add a bit of their governance priorities to the global Internet, leaving the rest of the world high and dry. In my understanding, it is this 'rest of the world' whose interests we should be representing most. Therefore I really did not get the rational of the above statement - why also not do some global governance of the Internet, in addition to the required national and regional one (Do ask a Kenya or Philippines what leverage they really have today on the global Internet to which they are subject relentlessly. What basis exists for excepting developing countries to simply accept the status quo -- even more unthinkable being that civil society, in effect, proposes that they simply accept the status quo ) . > > - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take > responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the > "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global > governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for the > ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and collaboration > among UN agencies (including the ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and > refer several times to what we think are the ITU's critical roles in > addressing the huge challenges ahead. Which are these mechanisms of coordination... And specifically, where would discussions and resolutions on issues like net neutrality frameworks (remember that the cross border aspect of NN was identified as a key global IG issue by a Council of Europe expert group), generally regulatory principles for IP based communication, or even basic discussions of the nature of personal data in the emerging economy (resource versus right) .... If you want to find a big series of Internet related issues that *have no current home* at any globally democratic forum, simply pick up the agenda over the last several years of the OECD's Committee on Information, computers and communication policy (CICCP) and you will be astonished by the number of Internet specific policy issues. Where should they be resolved. And an appropriate resolution of these issues underlie the very basic paradigm of how the emerging Internet mediated society will be (1) structured, and (2) governance. You say "I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges". Please let me know who do you propose takes responsibility for all the very impotant issues listed above - I mean, (2) at the global level, (2) in a democratic way. It is this long term structural impact of your proposal that is what I find extremely dangerous. BTW, as I mentioned above, so much of 'global' Internet issues get taken up today by the OECD's CICCP.... You proposal call for making ITU CWG-PP multistakeholder. Interesting, and I have asked this question often, I have never seen the civil society groups involved with OECD's CICCP work - which included a lot of those who have signed on this present ITU related statement - seek making the CICCP multistakeholder.... Would this not count as hypocrisy. I cannot understand why and how the agenda of this civil society group - proposing the present statement- is almost completely aligned with what the status quo forces on the Internet want from the ITU PP or do not want.... How can we simply have no agenda to do something about say cyber security that the world, especially post Snowden, is so worried about, and just have one agenda, ITU, step back, dont do anything... That is what this statement is really about, a little ornamental language here or there not withstanding. parminder > > That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was > poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by > Jeanette. > > I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can > continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find > the common ground between differing positions. > > Best > Anne > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill > wrote: > > I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his > comments. > Best, > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org > ]*On Behalf Of > *parminder > *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > ; IRP > *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 > hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in > detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. > It says yes there are many very important global Internet > policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them > up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This > becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political > governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about > frequently in the documents of the World Economic Forum (read > for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). > > I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some > important Internet policy issues at the global level or some > other democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not > tenable that they be just left hanging out there, which only > allows those who have the greatest default power on the > Internet, mostly the US based economic and political > establishment, to carry on consolidating their power. This > statement for me is simply an expression of support for the > Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it. > > To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); > > Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from > developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies > unregulated global market models for global Internet > inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand > of all developing countries and all progressive civil society > at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was > one of the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to > close that issue by declaring that such things be best left to > free markets, with no regulatory framework, or even a > normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear > how even working on the interconnection issue, an express > mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the > ITU. It appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in > 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In the > circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement > should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. > > Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work > towards a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken > the world post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with > Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really > changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five > eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the > conduct of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or > have we simply given up and are ready to allow the powerful to > do what they may? Alternatively, is there any other solution > being thought of? Civil society must answer these questions. > > The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the > UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. > That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first > committee’s work is much less participative (of other > stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale > here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see > when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, > but right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the > first committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards > a cyber security treaty will require the expertise of ITU > which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. > Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance > bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and > unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather > than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. > > The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber > security treaty because there is no consensus on basic > concepts and principles in the area.... Is there a greater > consensus on the area of climate change, and so many other > areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the > area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and > principles emerge as a part of a process towards development > of global principles and agreements and not a as a pre > condition of them. This is universally known. One can > understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why > civil society? > > Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet > power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell > you where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my > view will simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... > > Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal > of all Internet policy related agenda from global governance > stage is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from > the global stage, the dominant political and economic forces > get a free reign, and the little policy that needs to be made > is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the > Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (seefor instance, just the > day before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on > how TPP seeks to regulate global IP TV transmissions). > > Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule > of the economically and politically powerful... > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: >> Dear colleagues >> >> As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF >> to try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU >> Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and >> participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of >> you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to >> develop positions on some of the most important substantive >> issues before the conference. The output of this second phase >> of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available >> for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: >> >> http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes >> >> The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference >> proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, >> both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and >> because many Member States submitted their proposals quite >> late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken >> us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. >> >> It is now very urgent to get this text in front of >> delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather >> than comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely >> can't live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, >> they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to >> propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult >> the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether >> to accept this edit. >> >> Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not >> presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or >> on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of >> the specific organisations endorsing. >> >> If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send >> your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org >> ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 >> EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. >> >> Best wishes >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org > > > > > -- > 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* > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Wed Oct 22 01:10:47 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:10:47 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Richard, On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Richard Hill wrote: > perhaps you would consider collaborating to prepare a synthetic paper that > presents the differing points of view. That is, a paper of the form "some > say X, others say Y". > That's a really interesting idea. It would be a *lot* of work to do it well, but could be very useful. Who were you thinking of as the audience for such a paper? I.e. would you see it as an internal exercise for the benefit of civil society, or an external product for policymakers? > > Regarding possible common ground, I would suggest a starting point: surely > we all believe that all human rights must be respected, and protected, and > that they are indivisible. > Yes. And I think it would not be hard to go further. The Web We Want principles, for example, were one such effort to find common ground, phrased in positive terms. When it comes to the negative stuff, i.e. the threats to a human rights-centred internet, I also find a great deal of agreement among civil society groups; and within that, I think that your concern about the growing power of industry is shared by many of us. The differences emerge when it comes to detailed analysis of the sources of industry power and the best strategies for tackling it. If the paper that you propose could help all of us to work through these types of strategic issues in a systematic way, I imagine it would be very good contribution to more effective civil society advocacy. 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Oct 22 07:38:23 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:38:23 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141022133823.4d55b0a1@quill> On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:38:08 +0200 Anne Jellema wrote on the BestBits list: > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to > come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. May I ask some questions about this?: Was this an open process which any interested civil society person would have been accepted to join upon request? Are there publicly accessible mailing list archives somewhere? Greetings, Norbert From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 09:47:03 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:47:03 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> Further to Parminder's comments below. I recently published a blogpost (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic model of "governance by and for the people" is in direct conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of "governance by and for stakeholders". I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in such a way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a value in simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation that often masks fundamental positions and values. I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue more broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a democratic approach to governance including in areas as central to our experience, well-being and future as the Internet and those who would give this governance over to decision making by those with specific "interests/stakes" in the outcome (and where the broad public interest if represented at all would be only one among many such competing "stakes") is a fundamental one. It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of "civil society" and others opting for a position that does not support democracy and democratic governance however and in what manner that might be achieved. M From: IRP [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM To: Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the Plenipot, which I found interesting and valuable. In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely accurate reading of its content: - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service and promote robust competition." The drafters include organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) level. - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges ahead. That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed by Jeanette. I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find the common ground between differing positions. Dear Anne Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage on this discussion. But my present email will only make one point, about the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which your email mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that manner, but I do often find a hyper sensitivity to political criticism in these circles and personalisation of it, here I mean personalisation in receiving political criticism. We must recognise that civil society work is a work of strong conviction and submersion in that conviction... People have a vision of the world they'd like to see, and there are forces that block the realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for anyone who really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I mean, on all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil society space, as in the conventional political space. However, for instance in India, which has a rather high level of professional in traditional political space, at least at the national level, political personalities are able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their political positions and counter positions without it being taken as being inappropriately uncivil or any such thing. I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from a core political civil society background, and so I an really not talking about you.) I also say it because I and people that I work with feel that the present position that is being proposed on the BestBits platform a major political statement that we find extremely problematic and something that sets a solid tone for a neoliberal paradigm for the emerging Internet-mediated society. In that respect its impact on the world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and social justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest it, with all means at our disposal. I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above email. best regards parminder Best Anne On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill wrote: I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his comments. Best, Richard -----Original Message----- From: Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org]On Behalf Of parminder Sent: mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; forum at justnetcoalition.org; IRP Subject: Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes there are many very important global Internet policy issues, and then says that the ITU should not take them up, but tells us nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a recipe for, or at least, towards a political governance free world, the kind one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the World Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important Internet policy issues at the global level or some other democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows those who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the US based economic and political establishment, to carry on consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and therefore I strongly oppose it. To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'. This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one thinks that the proponents of the statement should be bold and just ask for the closing down of the ITU. Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must answer these questions. The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is quite surprising becuase by all means, the first committee's work is much less participative (of other stakeholders) than even of the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, other than just to say ITU should not do it (we will see when we have to stop even the first committee from doing it, but right now the imperative is.... ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but remember that any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with this issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair and unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance? Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process towards development of global principles and agreements and not a as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil society? Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's news, http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to regulate global IP TV transmissions). Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of the economically and politically powerful... parminder On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: Dear colleagues As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to develop positions on some of the most important substantive issues before the conference. The output of this second phase of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and because many Member States submitted their proposals quite late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. It is now very urgent to get this text in front of delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather than comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, they should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose an edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept this edit. Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of the specific organisations endorsing. If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org) by 22:30 CET (16:30 EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. Best wishes 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 _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum at justnetcoalition.org http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org -- 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 _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Oct 22 13:16:41 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:16:41 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST TODAY: Internet Governance On The Move Message-ID: This has started. Due to tech difficulties, the webcast was a little delayed. I am also relaying the webex video over http://bit.ly/isoctv joly posted: "Today Wednesday October 22 2014 the Internet Society UK England Chapter (ISOC-E) in association with International Institute of Communications UK Chapter (IIC UK) and the London School of Economics Media Policy Project present Internet Governance on the" [image: IG on the move] Today *Wednesday October 22 2014* the *Internet Society UK England Chapter * (ISOC-E) in association with *International Institute of Communications UK Chapter * (IIC UK) and the *London School of Economics Media Policy Project * present *Internet Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US Government IANA oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution *. A distinguished panel will discuss the IANA transition, the current ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, and the 2015 review of the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), examining questions such as: What will the map of Internet Governance look like in a couple of years’ time? Where and how will global issues of Internet policy be discussed, from new domain names to net neutrality and other online freedoms? What is ‘the global multi-stakeholder community’? How should it oversee the basic governance structures for the Internet? What is the UK’s role and place in this evolution? Panel: *Sarah Taylor*, Deputy Director, Creative Economy, Internet, International, DCMS; *Martin Boyle*, Nominet and Member of the International Coordination Group for the transition of the IANA oversight; *Andrew Puddephat*, Global Partners Digital and European Council of Foreign Relations; *Malcolm Hutty*, Head of Public Affairs, London Internet Exchange (LINX). Moderator: *Professor Robin Mansell* of the LSE. Remote participation is available via webex. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *. *What: Internet Governance on the move: from ‘NetMundial’ to the US Government IANA oversight transition, the year of institutional evolution Where: London School of Economics and Political Science When: Wednesday October 22 2014 6pm-8pm BST | 1700-1900 UTC | 1300-1500 EDT Webcast: http://isoc-e.org/internet_governance_event/ Webex: https://isoc.webex.com/isoc/e.php?MTID=m97a3c59163ac8bdd2a649d8e7513cc1d Twitter: #isocukengland * Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7120 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 22 13:19:42 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:49:42 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations In-Reply-To: <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> References: <54463994.2040301@itforchange.net> <54472D41.1020108@itforchange.net> <0cf501cfedfe$a9bd5f30$fd381d90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5447E72E.3040606@itforchange.net> And if there indeed is real ignorance and people want to know what a neo-liberal model of global Internet governance looks like just read the below interview of the CEO of ICANN. He lays it all out rather well http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/07/internet-operations-chief-snowden-disclosures-make-my-job-easier/ It is this model that the Best Bits statement helps push forward. There can simply be no doubt in it. And people will need to choose which side they would want to be at this crucial juncture - on the side of slow ( perhaps even painfully slow) evolving democratic governance of our collective global affairs including the Internet, or shifting over to neoliberal governance by the elite.. And if they side with this structural shift to neolib governance today, it will be for keeps. We are in a real danger of loosing our democratic traditions. At the very least, this requires deep thinking on the part of all of us. parminder parminder On Wednesday 22 October 2014 07:17 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Further to Parminder’s comments below. > > I recently published a blogpost > > (also please not the comments) where I argued that the democratic > model of “governance by and for the people” is in direct > conflict/competition with the multi-stakeholder model of “governance > by and for stakeholders”. > > I am fully aware that presenting these contrasting positions in such a > way is highly simplistic but I also think that there is a value in > simplicity particularly where it removes the obfuscation that often > masks fundamental positions and values. > > I think that the division within Civil Society and I would argue more > broadly in the larger world between those who believe in a democratic > approach to governance including in areas as central to our > experience, well-being and future as the Internet and those who would > give this governance over to decision making by those with specific > “interests/stakes” in the outcome (and where the broad public interest > if represented at all would be only one among many such competing > “stakes”) is a fundamental one. > > It is extremely disappointing to see such broad swathes of “civil > society” and others opting for a position that does not support > democracy and democratic governance however and in what manner that > might be achieved. > > M > > *From:*IRP [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] > *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:06 PM > *To:* Anne Jellema; rhill at hill-a.ch > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > forum at justnetcoalition.org > *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: > 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 09:28 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > > Thank you, Parminder for the thoughtful criticisms. We're aware > that different parts of civil society have well-founded reasons > for holding different opinions on the role of the ITU, and we > fully respect these. I was very pleased to see that JustNet has > expressed its point of view in its own proposals for the Plenipot, > which I found interesting and valuable. > > In that spirit, I would like to respond to a couple of your > criticisms of our statement that I think don't reflect an entirely > accurate reading of its content: > > - I think your claim that we are advocating unregulated free > markets is unfair, since we state twice: "Each country should > retain individual authority to regulate IP interconnection rates > where necessary and advisable in order to ensure universal service > and promote robust competition." The drafters include > organisations that have been on the forefront of the fight for > stronger net neutrality regulation at national and regional (EU) > level. > > - I don't agree that our statement fails to identify who should > take responsibility for resolving key IG challenges; proposes the > "withdrawal of all internet policy related agenda from the global > governance stage"; or fails to acknowledge any important role for > the ITU. We repeatedly stress the need for coordination and > collaboration among UN agencies (including the ITU) and > multistakeholder bodies; and refer several times to what we think > are the ITU's critical roles in addressing the huge challenges ahead. > > That said, we agree that the reference to "ITU mission creep" was > poorly judged, and the entire para should be deleted as proposed > by Jeanette. > > I sincerely hope that a respectful and informed exchange of views can > continue among CSOs, along with the equally important effort to find > the common ground between differing positions. > > > Dear Anne > > Thanks for your response and engagement. I mean to further engage on > this discussion. But my present email will only make one point, about > the mutual respectfulness of any discussion, which your email > mentions. I am not saying that you meant it in that manner, but I do > often find a hyper sensitivity to political criticism in these circles > and personalisation of it, here I mean personalisation in receiving > political criticism. We must recognise that civil society work is a > work of strong conviction and submersion in that conviction... People > have a vision of the world they'd like to see, and there are forces > that block the realisation of that vision. Obviously therefore, for > anyone who really cares, the feelings involved are strong... And I > mean, on all sides of what could become a political divide. And such a > political divide is as possible, even likely, in the civil society > space, as in the conventional political space. However, for instance > in India, which has a rather high level of professional in traditional > political space, at least at the national level, political > personalities are able to be scathing and unsparing in terms of their > political positions and counter positions without it being taken as > being inappropriately uncivil or any such thing. > > I probably should not be so defensive, but I say all this because > many people here are simply too touchy. (I know that you come from a > core political civil society background, and so I an really not > talking about you.) I also say it because I and people that I work > with feel that the present position that is being proposed on the > BestBits platform a major political statement that we find extremely > problematic and something that sets a solid tone for a neoliberal > paradigm for the emerging Internet-mediated society. In that respect > its impact on the world, especially in terms of democracy, equity and > social justice is going to be far reaching, and these are the corner > stone canons of our work. And therefore we will strongly contest it, > with all means at our disposal. > > I will separately respond to some substantive points in your above email. > > best regards > parminder > > Best > > Anne > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Richard Hill > wrote: > > I fully agree with Parminder's analysis and strongly support his comments. > > Best, > > Richard > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Forum [mailto:forum-bounces at justnetcoalition.org > ]*On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* mardi, 21. octobre 2014 12:47 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; forum at justnetcoalition.org > ; IRP > *Subject:* Re: [JNC - Forum] [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour > sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations > > > I have not had the chance to go into the long statement in detail. > However, what I see as its main refrain is bothersome. It says yes > there are many very important global Internet policy issues, and > then says that the ITU should not take them up, but tells us > nothing about who should take them up. This becomes a recipe for, > or at least, towards a political governance free world, the kind > one nowadays read about frequently in the documents of the World > Economic Forum (read for instance its Global Redesign Initiative). > > I am agnostic about whether ITU takes up at least some important > Internet policy issues at the global level or some other > democratic global body takes them up. However, it is not tenable > that they be just left hanging out there, which only allows those > who have the greatest default power on the Internet, mostly the US > based economic and political establishment, to carry on > consolidating their power. This statement for me is simply an > expression of support for the Internet power status quo, and > therefore I strongly oppose it. > > To take a few examples (a more detailed critique will follow); > > Perhaps the most disturbing part of the statement, from developing > countries viewpoint, is tha which sanctifies unregulated global > market models for global Internet inter-connectivity.... This is a > major reversal from the stand of all developing countries and all > progressive civil society at the WSIS, where unfair global > interconnection regimes was one of the main 'development issues'. > This statement seems to close that issue by declaring that such > things be best left to free markets, with no regulatory framework, > or even a normative/ principles framework. In any case, it is not > clear how even working on the interconnection issue, an express > mandate for ITU from the WSIS is a 'mission creep' for the ITU. It > appears that there is not one thing that ITU can do in 2014 which > will not be called a mission creep. In the circumstances one > thinks that the proponents of the statement should be bold and > just ask for the closing down of the ITU. > > Further, the statement says that the ITU should not work towards a > treaty on cyber- security, an issue that has shaken the world post > Snowden. Just today I read an interview with Snowden's colleague > Laura Poitras about how little has really changed on the ground > as far as mass surveillance by the five eyes is concerned. What > other than a treaty that reigns in the conduct of the states in > this regard can be a solution? Or have we simply given up and are > ready to allow the powerful to do what they may? Alternatively, is > there any other solution being thought of? Civil society must > answer these questions. > > The statement seems to suggest that the first committee of the UN > Gen Assembly should keep doing the work on cyber security. That is > quite surprising becuase by all means, the first committee’s work > is much less participative (of other stakeholders) than even of > the ITU. So, what is the rationale here, other than just to say > ITU should not do it (we will see when we have to stop even the > first committee from doing it, but right now the imperative is.... > ). I am fine with the first committee doing it, but remember that > any effort towards a cyber security treaty will require the > expertise of ITU which is the agency that has hitherto dealt with > this issue. Such an simply obstructionist attitude to global > governance bespeaks of a movement towards a very unequal, unfair > and unjust world. Progressive civil society must take note rather > than blindly signing on this rather dangerous statement. > > The statement says, we should not begin working on a cyber > security treaty because there is no consensus on basic concepts > and principles in the area.... Is there a greater consensus on the > area of climate change, and so many other areas. Do we just give > up in these areas? if not, why in the area of Internet governance? > Consensus on concepts and principles emerge as a part of a process > towards development of global principles and agreements and not a > as a pre condition of them. This is universally known. One can > understand why US wants to protect the status quo, but why civil > society? > > Again, this is simply a statement for maintaining the Internet > power status quo... Dont do it at the ITU, but we wont tell you > where to do either.... Supporting this statement in my view will > simply be to support the global Internet status quo.... > > Yes, we need to reform the ITU, but seeking simple withdrawal of > all Internet policy related agenda from global governance stage is > very problematic. As this agenda is withdrawn from the global > stage, the dominant political and economic forces get a free > reign, and the little policy that needs to be made is made at > plurilateral forums like the OECD, or the Trans-Pacific > Partnership or TPP (see for instance, just the day before's news, > http://infojustice.org/archives/33428, on how TPP seeks to > regulate global IP TV transmissions). > > Such statements as this one simply clear the way for such rule of > the economically and politically powerful... > > parminder > > On Tuesday 21 October 2014 02:08 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > > Dear colleagues > > As you know, a fluid working group was formed after the IGF to > try to come up with joint recommendations for the ITU > Plenipot. We produced the open letter on transparency and > participation in the Plenipot process itself, which many of > you signed (thank you!). Our second and harder task was to > develop positions on some of the most important substantive > issues before the conference. The output of this second phase > of our work is a 7 page lobby document that is now available > for endorsement for the next 24 hours at: > > *http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes* > > The fluid working group struggled to obtain the conference > proposals on which to base our analysis and recommendations, > both because of the ITU's restrictions on document access and > because many Member States submitted their proposals quite > late in the day. As a result, our drafting process has taken > us hard up against the start of the Plenipot itself. > > It is now very urgent to get this text in front of > delegations, so we are opening it for endorsements rather than > comment. If however someone has a red flag, "absolutely can't > live with it" issue that prevents them from signing on, they > should email me personally in the next 24 hours to propose an > edit(s) to resolve this issue, and I will consult the other > members of the ITU fluid working group on whether to accept > this edit. > > Due to the lack of time for comment and consensus, we are not > presenting these recommendations in the name of Best Bits or > on behalf of civil society in general but only on behalf of > the specific organisations endorsing. > > If you would like your organisation to be listed, please send > your logo to Carolina Rossini (crossini at publicknowledge.org > ) by 22:30 CET (16:30 > EST) tomorrow, 21 Oct. > > Best wishes > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/forum_justnetcoalition.org > > > > -- > > 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* > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: