From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sun Mar 1 11:24:14 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 11:24:14 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] IGF calls Message-ID: *Call for Workshop Proposals* The IGF Secretariat is issuing a call for workshop proposals for the IGF 2015 meeting. Interested individuals and entities are kindly asked to submit workshop proposals through the online form that will be available on the IGF website from *9 March 2015*. The deadline for submission is *30 March 2015*. Please note that there can be no extension of the deadline. Until the publication of the online submission form, workshop proponents are invited to consult the template of the submission form , the Guidelines for workshop proposals , as well as the MAG workshop review and evaluation process. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ -- -- *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 willi.uebelherr at gmail.com Mon Mar 2 21:17:45 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:17:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Net Neutrality in the next Internet In-Reply-To: References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <00d701d0534c$85b3d700$911b8500$@ch> <54F1AEEE.4040900@meetinghouse.net> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org> <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca> Message-ID: <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com> Am 02/03/2015 um 06:37 p.m. schrieb Vint Cerf: > i hope it is clear that CDNs, colocation, and even adjacencies with access > ISPs reduces traffic on the Internet by placing content geographically > closer to the recipients who are downloading or streaming. Google, like > many other sources of content, tries to make the aggregate Internet more > efficient by increasing connectivity to edge access providers and major > backbone networks. > > v Dear friends, for what we need IXP's, ISP's, monster CDN's or any other private instances? This constructions have nothing to do with the "InterNet". And the most reduction of transport volumes we can create with local server structures. Then all people in our world can use her local resources. many greetings, willi La Paz, Bolivia From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Mar 6 12:07:20 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 22:37:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> Message-ID: <54F9DEC8.9040508@itforchange.net> On Friday 06 March 2015 12:53 AM, Shawna Finnegan wrote: > Dear Michael, > > While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the > discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your > question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of > 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy. > > In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been > that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various > multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it > is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support > our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively > engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Council. > > Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing > discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced > cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation > is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet governance: > > "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a means > to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance that > enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva > Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and > prosperous world.” > > (from our submission: > http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf) > > There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' over > a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. Shawna, two things in the above regard. First, unlike democracy we just dont know what multistakeholderism is - even in its ideal-typical form, and how it works to produce public policy, the key question here. I asked this question specifically responding on 27th Feb to Anriette's email, but got no response. And to leave it not vague, also cited two specific hypothetical policy documents, asking how in your scheme of things these would be best produced. Once we know the answer, we will really be able to compare it with the alternative - known and practised democratic means (which if you want me to describe, I happily will, at least my best conception of such a method). Second, it indeed there is no binary or dilemma, as you say, APC and other CS people present there should perhaps have put their foot down as solidly as JNC did against those who said 'democracy had baggage', and therefore, while the 'multistakeholder' word would be in the document, 'democracy' wont be. It is 'they' who posed this 'false dilemma' and you should perhaps be arguing with them. (Did the CS groups/ people that were present even object to the 'democracy has baggage' assertion? No, they did not.) We can make these points in discussions here, but those must also match the visible action on the ground, which really counts, either contributing to or taking away from the real political struggles. Some very significant political things happened in Paris yesterday, and there are responsibilities and accountabilities for that, beyond words presented in these discussions, and I mean no dis-respect from them, because I am indeed happy that you are presenting a case. I am just saying what I politically think about the situation, and I cannot be dishonest about it. regards parminder > APC engages > where we see the opportunity to positively affect change. > > Shawna > > On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on >> by significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference >> to "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology >> of "multistakeholderism >> " >> >> > and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social >> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of >> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite >> "demeaning" of all those who were in any way a party to this >> travesty. >> >> >> >> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the >> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and >> equally of the provenance of the funding support provided for the >> Civil Society component who were able to attend this event and thus >> provide the overall framework of legitimacy for this output >> document should I think raise alarm bells among any with a degree >> of independent concern for how normative structures are evolving >> (or "being evolved") in this sphere. >> >> >> >> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of >> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its >> own normative structures as I queried in my previous email? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> >> >> Just an explanation and some context. >> >> >> >> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was >> to review comments on the draft statement and support the chair >> and secretariat in compiling drafts. >> >> >> >> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of >> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite. >> >> >> >> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC >> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the >> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which >> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final >> draft). >> >> >> >> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any >> reason other than it came during the final session and the >> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked >> directly to the Study. >> >> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to >> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final >> study report rather than in the outcome statement. >> >> >> >> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of >> the discussion. >> >> >> >> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never >> really an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic >> to multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the >> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for >> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the >> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very >> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so >> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly >> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This >> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be >> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of >> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back >> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having >> 'democratic' >> >> in front of multistakeholder. >> >> >> >> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for >> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') >> into the text. >> >> >> >> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic >> multistakeholder', but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded. >> >> >> >> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that >> they are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and >> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces. >> >> >> >> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could >> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference >> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not >> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that >> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included. >> >> >> >> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, >> but that the number of objections to this text were far greater >> than the number of requests for putting it in. >> >> >> >> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated >> in this way. >> >> >> >> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as >> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in >> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of >> the government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that >> anonymity is illegitimate. >> >> >> >> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in >> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the >> gains vs. the losses. >> >> >> >> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. >> Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence in >> the global south who will put issues that are important to us on >> its agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more >> people from civil society, particularly from developing countries, >> to learn, participate and influence internet-related debates with >> policy-makers. >> >> >> >> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really >> know what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive >> and they demean not only the work of the civil society >> organisations or individuals you name, but also the work - and what >> I believe to be the values - of the Just Net Coalition. >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100 >>> Jeremy Malcolm > >>> wrote: >>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein >>>> > > >> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others >>>>> on the >>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social >>>>> and >>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document >>>>> meant to >>>>> have global significance? >>>> With pleasure. This is why: >>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to-t >>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users >>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is >>> JNC's >>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual >>> position of >>> JNC. >>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic. >>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be >>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human >>> right, >>> even if there are countries where this is not currently >>> implemented >>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be >>> democratic. >>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this >>> 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. >>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism >>> is >>> implemented in a way that is not democratic. >>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global >>> governance >>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our >>> foundational >>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which >>> are >>> democratic *and* participative. >>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims >>> is >>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led >>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative. >>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and* >>> participative. >>> Is that so hard to understand??? >>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an >>> earlier >>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... >>> the >>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite >>> full >>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response >>> (which >>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at >>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition >>> http://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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as 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 Fri Mar 6 12:08:08 2015 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:08:08 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577F5C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> References: <464A9592-C3C0-46EB-996E-04D34FB57AAF@consensus.pro>,<54F786E9.7010106@piratpartiet.se> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577F5C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the public. In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's information." As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any electromagnetic means." For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's the term used for WTO member-countries): (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the movement of information within and across borders, including for intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade in services. (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than as necessary: (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their ability to make their networks or services available to the public generally; (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications transport networks or services; or (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport networks and services may include: (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph 7(a); (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such equipment to such networks; (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another service supplier; or (vi) notification, registration and licensing. (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote: > To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels on 2 March 2015: > > (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technology and terminal equipment used; > > (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services. > > What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? > > Best regards. > > //Erik > > ________________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] > Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules > > Dear all, > > For completion, the European Union has defined "information society > services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, > that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a > distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a > recipient of services." > > See > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN > > > This should be the amended act: > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 > > > These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the > network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may > be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should > be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy > obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public > authorities were that to be the case. > > best regards, > > Amelia > > On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> Dear Seth and others, >> >> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be out-of-date the moment they were made. >> >> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. >> >> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found here: http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent >> >> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your best source, see here: https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm >> >> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood the tests of time quite well. >> >> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: >> >>> That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re >>> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the >>> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. >>> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because >>> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel >>> wrote: >>>> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in particular: >>>> >>>> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and support services. It does not include the value of the information transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access to the Internet. >>>> >>>> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer services (hardware and software related services and data processing services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and feature articles to the media), and other information provision services (database services and web search portals) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson >>>> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 >>>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>>> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>> >>>> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs telecommunication service? >>>> >>>> I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two categories. >>>> >>>> Not here: >>>> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm >>>> >>>> Or here (telecom, but not info service): >>>> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en >>>> >>>> >>>> Seth >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you >>>>> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider >>>>> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Marilia, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish >>>>> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV >>>>> document is more than welcome. >>>>> >>>>> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it >>>>> is not clear the difference between "information services" and >>>>> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that >>>>> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Eduardo >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in >>>>>> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that >>>>>> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN >>>>>> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate >>>>>> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights >>>>>> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). >>>>>> >>>>>> The document will be updated as more information is made available. >>>>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF >>>>>> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> CTS/FGV >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Marília Maciel >>>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>>>>> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >>>>>> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>>>> >>>>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >>>>>> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >>>>>> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 Mar 6 13:25:01 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:25:01 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Internetional Media Support Message-ID: *From:* International Media Support (IMS) *Date:* March 6, 2015 at 10:38:52 AM EST View this email in your browser March 2015 For International Women’s Day on Sunday 8 March, IMS pays tribute to the women around the world who challenge male dominance in and around the media; the women who create platforms for free expression and for open debate. In Iraqi Kurdistan, the IMS-supported women’s magazine Zhin does just that: with an all-female staff who reaches out to a large and diverse group of women, it promotes female success stories and provides a platform for expression for women in a society where representation in, and production of, media is otherwise dominated almost entirely by men.International Women's Day 2015 » Share Tweet Forward © 2015 International Media Support (IMS). The text in this email is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . Photos may not be reused without the prior approval of their respective copyright owners. Our mailing address is: International Media Support (IMS) Nørregade 18 Copenhagen 1165 Denmark Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] -- -- *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 shawna at apc.org Fri Mar 6 14:35:44 2015 From: shawna at apc.org (Shawna Finnegan) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:35:44 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Michael, Parminder Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I will try to respond to the points that you have both raised, reminding you that I am speaking from personal opinion, and not as an APC representative. On 15-03-05 04:20 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in > discursive rather than declarative mode... > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan > [mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 2:22 PM To: Michael > Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at > UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Michael, > > > > Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a > global governance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes? > > > > */[MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite > unclear as to which of the variety of stakeholder models is being > proposed at any particular time or in any particular context, which > of course is one of the major sources of hesitation that I have > with these kinds of proposals. Before entering into a decision > making process and particularly one that will have real and > potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the > rules of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are > they accountable to and how, what overall structures of > accountability will be in place, what decision making > rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so on. > Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it > is rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into > the meme and then take one's chances with whatever turns up re: > what will actually occur in a specific decision making context. My > own experiences in attempting to participate in MS processes as > evidenced in my blog give some indication at a micro-level of what > is involved./* > sf: That is an interesting analogy for multi-stakeholder processes. As a relative newcomer, my impression is that the rules of the 'game' are still being determined, based on some core principles. Given the complexity of IG history, actors and spaces, as well as the technical infrastructure and global politics, I am not at all surprised that these processes continue to change and evolve in different contexts. However you could certainly make the argument that CS should not engage in any process without clearly defined rules and structures of accountability, especially if there is a high risk of capture by private interests. I'd argue that private interests would continue to influence the rules to their benefit, but it would at least address some issues of accountability. This might be a good point to address Parminder's question to Anriette on Feb 27: "Say, for instance, it was found useful to write a global normative document on the 'role on data in the society', which would enable countries to begin understanding this new terrain in normative terms and can help the necessary legislative and regulatory work. (There are innumerable such important documents, like on health, education, etc written regularly at UN bodies.) In order to make it more concrete, let us say, UNESCO was asked to do it. Who do think should make and decide on the final document - governments, or governments and corporates on an equal footing?" Why do you exclude civil society from the decision? My personal perspective would be for the final document to be agreed upon by as representative a group of stakeholders as possible. The role of data in society will be understood differently by individuals within the technical community, end users, academics, corporations and government representatives, all relative to where they are in the world and what their experiences have been. If the document is to have any real significance, those affected by it must feel they have some ownership over it, that their perspective of the role of data in society has been somehow taken into consideration. How could we go about this in practice? Intensive outreach. Start with local discussion groups of different stakeholders, ideally open to anyone interested. These groups could sugget key text, red lines, whatever they think is important to consider for the document. A few representatives (chosen by whatever method the group decides is fair) could then take those views to national and regional discussion groups of diverse stakeholders. From there another group of regional representatives would be chosen to engage in drafting the document. The text would be available online, and representatives at this global drafting would be responsible for going back to their regional groups, which would in turn communicate with national and local groups. It is a complex, expensive and time-consuming proposal, but I think it would be much more effective than a purely state based process. > */ /* > > */Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to > know how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and > not just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will. My > observation is that MS processes do not work very well at all when > there is conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of > the approach is one where participants are involved specifically > because they come from different contexts with presumably different > interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various > kinds. My observation is that when a MS process is subject to > conflict or stress it immediately reverts to a defensive and > control mode where privileged insiders close ranks, extrude the > conflict (and its individual sources) and proceed as though nothing > had occurred – in this way they are achieving consensus (which is > of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects nothing more > than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and > satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond > to divergent positions and interests./* sf: Could you provide an example of an MS process subject to conflict or stress that immediately reverted to defensive and controlled mode? Was your interpretation that the CS involved were privileged insiders, with their own interests? > > */ /* > > */Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite > capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups > since these groups have in most cases no obvious internal > structures for ensuring appropriate levels of effective > accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic > elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage" > these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able > to do in the absence of some form of external (state based) > structures of enforcing accountability, transparency etc. In the > sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which > ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of > value. Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil > society (or government such as those found in many LDC’s for that > matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and > will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour > of elite and dominant interests./* > sf: I think here we again differ in our expectations of state based structures of enforcing accountability. Government institutions may have rules and structures to hold themselves accountable to the people, but in practice they are incredibly vulnerable to those same resources that you believe are irresistible to some civil society and governments in MS processes. The risk of elite interests capturing decision-making processes is high no matter what you do. Structures of accountability only work if there is sustained engagement from people outside the process, particularly civil society and media. In this regard I think that some of the questions arising in this UNESCO thread are extremely valuable to the ongoing accountability of CS engaged in multi-stakeholder processes. Some questions, on the other hand, are framed purely as accusations, and in my opinion are intended to divide civil society. > > > */ /* > > I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US > government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing > global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying > societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a > paradigm. > > > > */[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to > redouble efforts to make democratic governance more effective and > responsive rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that > something (anything) might be better… /* sf: Who is suggesting that we toss democratic governance? > > > > */ /* > > Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of > democratic pluralism. > > > > */[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the > “democratic” comes in… perhaps you could explain./* sf: I think the proposal that I suggested above for drafting a document on the role of data in society is a good example of democratic decision-making, with multiple layers of representation and accountability. > > */ /* > > */ /* > > Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the > same way as democratic processes. > > > > */[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at > least the possibility of rectification. With legitimized control > by powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I > can see at rectification. Those interests are in fact legally > obliged (under current law) to maximize their individual interests > whatever the collective good. sf: They maximize profit, so our recourse is to put their profit at risk. It is not easy, particularly when choices are limited, but civil society has had past success in pressuring companies to change their behaviour for the benefit of the collective good. I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter > campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends – how exactly do I > influence Google or Disney or… for Google I can’t even find a > phone number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision > that they have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and > more effective means for achieving democratic accountability and > better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic > decision making—but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have > been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and > struggle for an undefined “pig in a poke” doesn’t seem to me to be > a very good social trade off to be making./* > sf: I still do not understand why you believe that engaging in multi-stakeholder processes is effectively tossing out the gains made in democratic decision-making. > > > Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am > surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional > civil society grouping to shun an organization that did not > actively endorse democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a > fundamental principle. Democracy is a system of government. In > practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate us and > legitimize powerful interests. > > */ /* > > */[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics > and structures of democratic governance from the norms and > principles of democracy. sf: Yes, it is necessary to separate in some way. but also to consider whether and how the norms and principles of democracy have been implemented in practice. If our existing structures have been wholly insufficient to achieve the principles of democracy, then we must seriously reconsider those structures. Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may > have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn’t mean > that the aspiration of the people towards self-governance, > empowerment, and social justice is not an appropriate aspiration > which is to be lightly and cavalierly rejected in favour of > governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) > elites./* > sf: Why must we abandon aspirations towards self-governance, empowerment and social justice in order to engage in multi-stakeholder processes? > > > I very much agree that decisions made by civil society > organizations now, even if through non-action, will have > significant consequences long-term. And I agree that sometimes > civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Perhaps we should > have red lines. That is an important discussion to have. > > */ /* > > */[MG] yes../* sf: I think this returns us to the point raised by Parminder on why CS at the UNESCO meeting did not put their foot down against those who said 'democracy has baggage' (in this context). If the individuals present in the negotiations were representing our wider civil society, and the consensus of our wider civil society is that democracy must be included in all documents relating to internet governance, then perhaps they should have walked out of the negotiations. However, I don't think that there is necessarily consensus that democracy must be included in all documents relating to internet governance, particularly when the link is being made to a multilateral framing. > > */ /* > > */BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder > governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) > other areas of governance. Is this the official position of > APC?/* sf: You heard incorrectly. I am simply trying to understand how you view MS processes to be in direct conflict with democracy, and am poking a few holes in the perspective that governments are the ideal gatekeepers of internet policy. As for APC's official position, I believe that I addressed that question with the excerpt I sent from the WGEC submission. Looking forward to your thoughts, Shawna > > */ /* > > */M/* > > > > Shawna > > > > On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion... > > > >> Just a couple of things... > > > >> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its > >> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have >> been > >> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a > >> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, >> to > >> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in >> the > >> context of Internet Governance. APC could (and in my opinion > >> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial >> of > >> democracy as a fundamental governance principle. > > > >> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear > >> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of > >> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a >> clear > >> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who >> signed on > >> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there >> is a > >> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those >> who > >> signed on to this agreement. > > > >> And please be aware that this is not trivial... > > > >> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that >> they see > >> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the >> wide > >> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in > >> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of >> "democracy" > >> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration >> of > >> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global > >> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position? > > > >> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of >> governance > >> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC and others means >> that the > >> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most > >> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not >> completely > >> ignored, of course further empowering the elites and the 1%. >> Again is > >> this APC's preferred position? > > > >> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through >> non-action > >> rather than action will contribute to very significant >> consequences in > >> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and >> others > >> who are so blithely jumping on the MS > >> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of > >> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of >> their > >> own normative structures...? > > > >> Best, > > > >> M > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan > >> [mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael > >> Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at > >> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > > >> Dear Michael, > > > >> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the > >> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to >> your > >> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour >> notions of > >> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy. > > > >> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has >> been > >> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various > >> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether >> it > >> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we >> support > >> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and >> actively > >> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights > >> Council. > > > >> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing > >> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced > >> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder >> participation > >> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet > >> governance: > > > >> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is >> a > >> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet >> governance > >> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the >> Geneva > >> Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and > >> prosperous world.” > > > >> (from our submission: > >> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf > >> ) > > > >> There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' > >> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC > >> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect >> change. > > > >> Shawna > > > >> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off >>> on by > >>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference >>> to > >>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology >>> of > >>> "multistakeholderism > >>> > " > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > > and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of > social > >>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack >>> of > >>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite >>> "demeaning" > >>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of >>> the > >>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and >>> equally > >>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the >>> Civil > >>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus >>> provide > >>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document >>> should I > >>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent > >>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being > >>> evolved") in this sphere. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of > >>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of >>> its own > >>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> M > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- From: > >>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of >>> Anriette > >>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >>> "Connecting > >>> the Dots Conference" > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear all > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Just an explanation and some context. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role >>> was to > >>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair >>> and > >>> secretariat in compiling drafts. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority >>> of > >>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and >>> onsite. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC > >>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the > >>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which > >>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final >>> draft). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for >>> any > >>> reason other than it came during the final session and the > >>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked > >>> directly to the Study. > >>> > >>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and >>> to > >>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final >>> study > >>> report rather than in the outcome statement. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome >>> of the > >>> discussion. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never >>> really > >>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic >>> to > >>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the > >>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks >>> for > >>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the > >>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a >>> very > >>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so > >>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is >>> directly > >>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. >>> This > >>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can >>> be > >>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of > >>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back > >>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having > >>> 'democratic' > >>> > >>> in front of multistakeholder. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code >>> for > >>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among >>> governments') into > >>> the text. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic >>> multistakeholder', > >>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that >>> they > >>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and > >>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple >>> spaces. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we >>> could > >>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a >>> reference > >>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could >>> not > >>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him >>> that > >>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this >>> seriously, but > >>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater >>> than the > >>> number of requests for putting it in. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are >>> negotiated > >>> in this way. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption >>> as > >>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of >>> expression in > >>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence >>> of the > >>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that > >>> anonymity is illegitimate. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in > >>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate >>> the > >>> gains vs. the losses. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. > >>> Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence >>> in the > >>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on >>> its > >>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more >>> people > >>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to >>> learn, > >>> participate and influence internet-related debates with > >>> policy-makers. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really >>> know > >>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive >>> and they > >>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or > >>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to >>> be > >>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Anriette > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100 > >>> > >>>> Jeremy Malcolm >> > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein >>>>> >>> > > >>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and >>>>>> others on the > >>> > >>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and >>>>>> "social and > >>> > >>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document >>>>>> meant to > >>> > >>>>>> have global significance? > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> With pleasure. This is why: > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to > >>>>> - > >>>>> > >>>>> > > t > >>> > >>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims >>>> is > >>>> JNC's > >>> > >>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual >>>> position > >>>> of > >>> > >>>> JNC. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must >>>> be > >>> > >>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a >>>> human > >>>> right, > >>> > >>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently >>>> implemented > >>> > >>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be > >>>> democratic. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states >>>> this 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. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which >>>> multistakeholderism is > >>> > >>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global > >>>> governance > >>> > >>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our >>>> foundational > >>> > >>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet >>>> which are > >>> > >>>> democratic *and* participative. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy >>>> claims is > >>> > >>>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of >>>> government-led > >>> > >>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and* > >>> > >>>> participative. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Is that so hard to understand??? > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an >>>> earlier > >>> > >>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed >>>> ... the > >>> > >>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be >>>> quite > >>>> full > >>> > >>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my >>>> response > >>>> (which > >>> > >>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Greetings, > >>> > >>>> Norbert > >>> > >>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > >>> > >>>> http://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 > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You > >>> received this message as 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 iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+gGPAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKT/kL/1AVB2elHc3cWbgrNtyqLlyF 6A5/Pp+1wXupLU90KOqrXtnfizQeTUlocazv/2ywf5KyjAHeFpk0Z8kzf0Ik2iwh maZ83sm9bh9hlJ74ZFCmHh9nuvUOnmT4u+dBxSQHhx9T3UKiHM8pAOtQJFNoG7dH KlhyeszzYoeyCm+9/h7nBjVRmcpkkts+hUM/fFXLSRRMgLIVbWS2/Wj01pgZehbI puWiPfO4ucSFusN/Ny38KRWS0zdQCCW0QczeTRJE4EHRjpKV06Jpgao99nX2mkVH WWQUdWEoMpyLfPEpzjAqZRIMTKjg+zbyyaXgBPe+AACd7K6kgx69dlIvcsTCDkk8 YslRB5yZmo4WO05mXXWMOtZ+h5/iVpNJWZCzBgGB0/vVldMm593/qZOqgixpweks FUxHvzpon0aqEUm2PCAV1Rr8TjOOmUHpwQvSgLWCVr8Ro32pxmVnuKU+XH8k3nc0 DxY7+D2Da+uBkax/NSXSW5vN+Ri/JY7Ghum5+03eKw== =MVDF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Fri Mar 6 15:47:05 2015 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:47:05 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules In-Reply-To: <3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> References: <464A9592-C3C0-46EB-996E-04D34FB57AAF@consensus.pro>, <54F786E9.7010106@piratpartiet.se> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577F5C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,<3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578A9A@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Thanks Nick. Awesome. //Erik ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Nick Ashton-Hart [nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Friday 6 March 2015 18:08 To: JOSEFSSON Erik Cc: Amelia Andersdotter; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the public. In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's information." As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any electromagnetic means." For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's the term used for WTO member-countries): (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the movement of information within and across borders, including for intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade in services. (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than as necessary: (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their ability to make their networks or services available to the public generally; (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications transport networks or services; or (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport networks and services may include: (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph 7(a); (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such equipment to such networks; (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another service supplier; or (vi) notification, registration and licensing. (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik > wrote: To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels on 2 March 2015: (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technology and terminal equipment used; (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services. What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? Best regards. //Erik ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules Dear all, For completion, the European Union has defined "information society services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services." See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN This should be the amended act: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public authorities were that to be the case. best regards, Amelia On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: Dear Seth and others, With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be out-of-date the moment they were made. It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found here: http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your best source, see here: https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood the tests of time quite well. On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel wrote: See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in particular: (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and support services. It does not include the value of the information transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access to the Internet. [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer services (hardware and software related services and data processing services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and feature articles to the media), and other information provision services (database services and web search portals) -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs telecommunication service? I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two categories. Not here: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm Or here (telecom, but not info service): http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en Seth On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: Dear Marilia, Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV document is more than welcome. For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it is not clear the difference between "information services" and "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. Best Eduardo On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Dear all, The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). The document will be updated as more information is made available. Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing Best wishes, CTS/FGV -- Marília Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as 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 Fri Mar 6 16:23:06 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:23:06 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> Message-ID: <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> Shawna, Inline -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan [mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 6, 2015 11:36 AM To: Michael Gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Michael, Parminder Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I will try to respond to the points that you have both raised, reminding you that I am speaking from personal opinion, and not as an APC representative. On 15-03-05 04:20 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > */[MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite unclear > as to which of the variety of stakeholder models is being proposed at > any particular time or in any particular context, which of course is > one of the major sources of hesitation that I have with these kinds of > proposals. Before entering into a decision making process and > particularly one that will have real and potentially very significant > consequences I want to know what the rules of the game are. Who is > involved, where they came, who are they accountable to and how, what > overall structures of accountability will be in place, what decision > making rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so on. > Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it is > rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into the > meme and then take one's chances with whatever turns up re: > what will actually occur in a specific decision making context. My > own experiences in attempting to participate in MS processes as > evidenced in my blog give some indication at a micro-level of what is > involved./* > sf: That is an interesting analogy for multi-stakeholder processes. As a relative newcomer, my impression is that the rules of the 'game' are still being determined, based on some core principles. Given the complexity of IG history, actors and spaces, as well as the technical infrastructure and global politics, I am not at all surprised that these processes continue to change and evolve in different contexts. However you could certainly make the argument that CS should not engage in any process without clearly defined rules and structures of accountability, especially if there is a high risk of capture by private interests. [MG] yes I'd argue that private interests would continue to influence the rules to their benefit, but it would at least address some issues of accountability. [MG] I'm not sure that I understand your point here... Is that CS (or anyone) should engage in MS processes even if they are undefined, and "without clearly defined rules and structures of accountability" on the (dare I say) probably rather remote possibility of being able to "address some issues of accountability"... unfortunately I fear, a rather David and Goliath struggle where David doesn't even have a workable slingshot... This might be a good point to address Parminder's question to Anriette on Feb 27: "Say, for instance, it was found useful to write a global normative document on the 'role on data in the society', which would enable countries to begin understanding this new terrain in normative terms and can help the necessary legislative and regulatory work. (There are innumerable such important documents, like on health, education, etc written regularly at UN bodies.) In order to make it more concrete, let us say, UNESCO was asked to do it. Who do think should make and decide on the final document - governments, or governments and corporates on an equal footing?" Why do you exclude civil society from the decision? My personal perspective would be for the final document to be agreed upon by as representative a group of stakeholders as possible. The role of data in society will be understood differently by individuals within the technical community, end users, academics, corporations and government representatives, all relative to where they are in the world and what their experiences have been. If the document is to have any real significance, those affected by it must feel they have some ownership over it, that their perspective of the role of data in society has been somehow taken into consideration. How could we go about this in practice? Intensive outreach. Start with local discussion groups of different stakeholders, ideally open to anyone interested. These groups could sugget key text, red lines, whatever they think is important to consider for the document. A few representatives (chosen by whatever method the group decides is fair) could then take those views to national and regional discussion groups of diverse stakeholders. From there another group of regional representatives would be chosen to engage in drafting the document. The text would be available online, and representatives at this global drafting would be responsible for going back to their regional groups, which would in turn communicate with national and local groups. It is a complex, expensive and time-consuming proposal, but I think it would be much more effective than a purely state based process. [MG] This is an interesting and useful proposal and certainly worth considering and experimenting with... But I think what you have described is a multi-stakeholder consultation process which I completely support and in fact think is absolutely necessary for reasons I outline in this blogpost https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/ This, perhaps you will agree, is quite some distance from the process you are describing coming up with for example a firm and enforceable policy/legislation for example concerning data privacy or freedom of expression/censorship. > */ /* > > */Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know > how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not > just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will. My observation > is that MS processes do not work very well at all when there is > conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of the approach > is one where participants are involved specifically because they come > from different contexts with presumably different interests which will > inevitably result in conflicts of various kinds. My observation is > that when a MS process is subject to conflict or stress it immediately > reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged insiders > close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) and > proceed as though nothing had occurred – in this way they are > achieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus > which reflects nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a > way of reconciling (and > satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to > divergent positions and interests./* sf: Could you provide an example of an MS process subject to conflict or stress that immediately reverted to defensive and controlled mode? Was your interpretation that the CS involved were privileged insiders, with their own interests? [MG] https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-my-adventures-in-stakeholderland/ I should also note that the much vaunted model multistakeholder process at the NetMundial event in Brazil did more or less precisely the same thing--giving over to an unrepresentative and more or less completely non-transparent academic grouping -- GIGAnet -- responsibility for "academic" participation in the various NM structures. GIGAnet then went on to assign all of the relevant places to GIGAnet insiders over the objections of the academic component of the Community Informatics community (a grouping numbering some 1500 of which perhaps 40% are academics or researchers with a professional interest in ICTs and Development, a subject more or less completely absent in the GIGAnet membership). These actions were confirmed by the silence of the NM organizers (the issue was brought firmly to their attention). The direct consequence of this was that the NM meeting and subsequent document more or less completely ignores the significant issues involved in ICTs and Development and which moreover were as I'm sure you know, the fundamental driver of WSIS of which the NM was meant to be some sort of a descendent. > > */ /* > > */Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite > capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups since > these groups have in most cases no obvious internal structures for > ensuring appropriate levels of effective > accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites > since these have the resources to participate and "manage" > these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to > do in the absence of some form of external (state based) structures of > enforcing accountability, transparency etc. In the sphere of Internet > Governance we are talking about decisions which ultimately will impact > billions and even trillions of dollars of value. Do you really think > that an under or non-resourced civil society (or government such as > those found in many LDC’s for that > matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and > will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour of > elite and dominant interests./* > sf: I think here we again differ in our expectations of state based structures of enforcing accountability. Government institutions may have rules and structures to hold themselves accountable to the people, but in practice they are incredibly vulnerable to those same resources that you believe are irresistible to some civil society and governments in MS processes. The risk of elite interests capturing decision-making processes is high no matter what you do. Structures of accountability only work if there is sustained engagement from people outside the process, particularly civil society and media. [MG] I completely agree but with effective and "sustained engagement from people outside the process, particularly civil society and media" who, over the long run do you think can be made to be accountable--Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon or an elected government? In this regard I think that some of the questions arising in this UNESCO thread are extremely valuable to the ongoing accountability of CS engaged in multi-stakeholder processes. Some questions, on the other hand, are framed purely as accusations, and in my opinion are intended to divide civil society. [MG] But if certain CS organizations are prepared to collaborate with certain governments and others in the broad based attempt to suppress democracy (in Internet Governance and elsewhere) and substitute elite (MS) decision making in its place, then perhaps it is a good thing for others not directly involved in these processes to see who is collaborating in these efforts and who isn't. > > > */ /* > > I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US > government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing > global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying > societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a > paradigm. > > > > */[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble > efforts to make democratic governance more effective and responsive > rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) > might be better… /* sf: Who is suggesting that we toss democratic governance? [MG] Isn't that what Anriette and other have said happened in the drafting group for the UNESCO statement (and which is directly evidenced by the absence of any reference to democracy and Internet Governance in the final statement) and which was a red line which she and others apparently representing Civil Society were prepared to cross. > > > Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of > democratic pluralism. > > > > */[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the > “democratic” comes in… perhaps you could explain./* sf: I think the proposal that I suggested above for drafting a document on the role of data in society is a good example of democratic decision-making, with multiple layers of representation and accountability. [MG] As I noted above the example you have given is one of consultation not of decision making. > > */ /* > > */ /* > > Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the > same way as democratic processes. > > > > */[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at > least the possibility of rectification. With legitimized control by > powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I can see > at rectification. Those interests are in fact legally obliged (under > current law) to maximize their individual interests whatever the > collective good. sf: They maximize profit, so our recourse is to put their profit at risk. It is not easy, particularly when choices are limited, but civil society has had past success in pressuring companies to change their behaviour for the benefit of the collective good. [MG] No question but this is hardly a substitute for achieving enforceable laws backed by state sanctions which would cover not all companies and circumstances rather than just the very few that CS would have the resources and capacity to influence. This has been the traditional direction for civil society action world-wide and the reason why CS has been so active in support of democracy and attempting to ensure the effectiveness and accountability of democratic structures of governance… Honestly I see no reason why in the Internet Governance sphere this approach should be abandoned, do you? I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter > campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends – how exactly do I > influence Google or Disney or… for Google I can’t even find a phone > number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision that they > have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and more > effective means for achieving democratic accountability and better and > more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic decision > making—but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have been > achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an > undefined “pig in a poke” doesn’t seem to me to be a very good social > trade off to be making./* > sf: I still do not understand why you believe that engaging in multi-stakeholder processes is effectively tossing out the gains made in democratic decision-making. [MG] Of course I don’t see that MS processes would result in a “tossing out of gains made in democratic decision-making”… I’m quite sure that no citizenry in the world would allow that… what I’m arguing is that there is a concerted attempt to replace democratic structures of decision-making by MS processes of decision making going forward which is something quite different and which actions such as those of the USG and its allies in this very specific context are to my mind a clear indication of. > > > Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am > surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional civil > society grouping to shun an organization that did not actively endorse > democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a fundamental > principle. Democracy is a system of government. In practice, that > system has been used as a tool to placate us and legitimize powerful > interests. > > */ /* > > */[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics > and structures of democratic governance from the norms and principles > of democracy. sf: Yes, it is necessary to separate in some way. but also to consider whether and how the norms and principles of democracy have been implemented in practice. If our existing structures have been wholly insufficient to achieve the principles of democracy, then we must seriously reconsider those structures. [MG] I agree… but that doesn’t mean that we jettison fundamental norms and principles of democracy in the process. What it means rather is that we need to redouble our efforts at designing effective structures and making existing structures work better. Tossing out 1000 years of struggle towards democratic accountability in favour of a completely unknown and shape-shifting set of memes such as multi-stakeholderism seems to me to be foolhardy in the extreme and more likely to be serving the interests of the few who are in a position as “key stakeholders” to derive direct benefits from such a change than to provide any advantage or benefit to the many. Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may > have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn’t mean that > the aspiration of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and > social justice is not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly > and cavalierly rejected in favour of governance by self-selected (and > ultimately self-serving) > elites./* > sf: Why must we abandon aspirations towards self-governance, empowerment and social justice in order to engage in multi-stakeholder processes? [MG] Perhaps you could explain to me or even better point me to instances where MS processes have enabled “self-governance, empowerment and social justice” rather than ensuring outcomes move in exactly the opposite direction. The MS processes that I’ve seen have all been those moving in the opposite direction. > > > I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations > now, even if through non-action, will have significant consequences > long-term. And I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out > of negotiations. Perhaps we should have red lines. That is an > important discussion to have. > > */ /* > > */[MG] yes../* sf: I think this returns us to the point raised by Parminder on why CS at the UNESCO meeting did not put their foot down against those who said 'democracy has baggage' (in this context). If the individuals present in the negotiations were representing our wider civil society, and the consensus of our wider civil society is that democracy must be included in all documents relating to internet governance, then perhaps they should have walked out of the negotiations. However, I don't think that there is necessarily consensus that democracy must be included in all documents relating to internet governance, particularly when the link is being made to a multilateral framing. [MG] Democracy is democracy… if one is attempting to characterize Internet Governance it is either democratic or it is not… In this instance the decision was clearly made that it would not be characterized by democratic structures/processes. The issue of “multilateral framing” is a complete red herring… If some choose to link democracy with multilateral processes in their own minds that is their problem and should not become a determining factor in other people’s minds or decision making. Words say what they say. > > */ /* > > */BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder > governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other > areas of governance. Is this the official position of > APC?/* sf: You heard incorrectly. I am simply trying to understand how you view MS processes to be in direct conflict with democracy, [MG] I’ve been extremely clear in these list based discussion, in my blogposts and in various other interventions… I don’t think that MS consultation processes are in direct conflict with democracy but I do think that MS decision processes are. and am poking a few holes in the perspective that governments are the ideal gatekeepers of internet policy. [MG] I have never said nor implied any such thing! I believe that democracy (not governments) is and needs to be the “ideal gatekeeper of Internet policy”, precisely how that democratically anchored decision making takes place will vary from circumstance to circumstance (including democratic practice through and by governments) and should be actively evolved in current circumstances given the oft noted (by me and others) failings of current democratic practice and further given the opportunities for enhanced democratic practice through the effective application of ICTs. As for APC's official position, I believe that I addressed that question with the excerpt I sent from the WGEC submission. [MG] okay M Looking forward to your thoughts, Shawna > > */ /* > > */M/* > > > > Shawna > > > > On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion... > > > >> Just a couple of things... > > > >> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its > >> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have >> been > >> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a > >> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to > >> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the > >> context of Internet Governance. APC could (and in my opinion > >> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of > >> democracy as a fundamental governance principle. > > > >> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear > >> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of > >> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear > >> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed >> on > >> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is >> a > >> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who > >> signed on to this agreement. > > > >> And please be aware that this is not trivial... > > > >> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they >> see > >> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide > >> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in > >> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy" > >> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of > >> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global > >> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position? > > > >> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of >> governance > >> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC and others means that >> the > >> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most > >> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely > >> ignored, of course further empowering the elites and the 1%. >> Again is > >> this APC's preferred position? > > > >> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through >> non-action > >> rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences >> in > >> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and >> others > >> who are so blithely jumping on the MS > >> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of > >> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their > >> own normative structures...? > > > >> Best, > > > >> M > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan > >> [ mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael > >> Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > < mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> < mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at > >> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > > >> Dear Michael, > > > >> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the > >> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your > >> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions >> of > >> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy. > > > >> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been > >> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various > >> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it > >> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support > >> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and >> actively > >> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights > >> Council. > > > >> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing > >> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced > >> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation > >> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet > >> governance: > > > >> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a > >> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance > >> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva > >> Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and > >> prosperous world.” > > > >> (from our submission: > >> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pd >> f > >> ) > > > >> There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' > >> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC > >> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change. > > > >> Shawna > > > >> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off >>> on by > >>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference >>> to > >>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology >>> of > >>> "multistakeholderism > >>> > < https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>" > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > > and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of > social > >>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack >>> of > >>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite >>> "demeaning" > >>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of >>> the > >>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and >>> equally > >>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the >>> Civil > >>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus >>> provide > >>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document >>> should I > >>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent > >>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being > >>> evolved") in this sphere. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of > >>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of >>> its own > >>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> M > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- From: > >>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > < mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> > >>> [ mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of >>> Anriette > >>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> < mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > < mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > >>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >>> "Connecting > >>> the Dots Conference" > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear all > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Just an explanation and some context. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role >>> was to > >>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair >>> and > >>> secretariat in compiling drafts. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority >>> of > >>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and >>> onsite. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC > >>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the > >>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which > >>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final >>> draft). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for >>> any > >>> reason other than it came during the final session and the > >>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked > >>> directly to the Study. > >>> > >>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and >>> to > >>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final >>> study > >>> report rather than in the outcome statement. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome >>> of the > >>> discussion. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never >>> really > >>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic >>> to > >>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the > >>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks >>> for > >>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the > >>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a >>> very > >>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so > >>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is >>> directly > >>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. >>> This > >>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can >>> be > >>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of > >>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back > >>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having > >>> 'democratic' > >>> > >>> in front of multistakeholder. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code >>> for > >>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among >>> governments') into > >>> the text. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic >>> multistakeholder', > >>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that >>> they > >>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and > >>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple >>> spaces. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we >>> could > >>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a >>> reference > >>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could >>> not > >>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him >>> that > >>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this >>> seriously, but > >>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater >>> than the > >>> number of requests for putting it in. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are >>> negotiated > >>> in this way. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption >>> as > >>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of >>> expression in > >>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence >>> of the > >>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that > >>> anonymity is illegitimate. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in > >>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate >>> the > >>> gains vs. the losses. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. > >>> Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence >>> in the > >>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on >>> its > >>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more >>> people > >>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to >>> learn, > >>> participate and influence internet-related debates with > >>> policy-makers. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really >>> know > >>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive >>> and they > >>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or > >>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to >>> be > >>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Anriette > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100 > >>> > >>>> Jeremy Malcolm < mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org%20%3cmailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein >>>>> >>> < mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> > >>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and >>>>>> others on the > >>> > >>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and >>>>>> "social and > >>> > >>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document >>>>>> meant to > >>> > >>>>>> have global significance? > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> With pleasure. This is why: > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to > >>>>> - > >>>>> > >>>>> > > t > >>> > >>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims >>>> is > >>>> JNC's > >>> > >>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual >>>> position > >>>> of > >>> > >>>> JNC. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must >>>> be > >>> > >>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a >>>> human > >>>> right, > >>> > >>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently >>>> implemented > >>> > >>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be > >>>> democratic. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states >>>> this 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. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which >>>> multistakeholderism is > >>> > >>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global > >>>> governance > >>> > >>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our >>>> foundational > >>> > >>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet >>>> which are > >>> > >>>> democratic *and* participative. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy >>>> claims is > >>> > >>>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of >>>> government-led > >>> > >>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and* > >>> > >>>> participative. > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Is that so hard to understand??? > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an >>>> earlier > >>> > >>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed >>>> ... the > >>> > >>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be >>>> quite > >>>> full > >>> > >>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my >>>> response > >>>> (which > >>> > >>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Greetings, > >>> > >>>> Norbert > >>> > >>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > >>> > >>>> http://JustNetCoalition.org > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> < mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >>>> < mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >>> > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Translate this email: >>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You > >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> < mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>. To > unsubscribe or change your settings, > >>> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+gGPAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKT/kL/1AVB2elHc3cWbgrNtyqLlyF 6A5/Pp+1wXupLU90KOqrXtnfizQeTUlocazv/2ywf5KyjAHeFpk0Z8kzf0Ik2iwh maZ83sm9bh9hlJ74ZFCmHh9nuvUOnmT4u+dBxSQHhx9T3UKiHM8pAOtQJFNoG7dH KlhyeszzYoeyCm+9/h7nBjVRmcpkkts+hUM/fFXLSRRMgLIVbWS2/Wj01pgZehbI puWiPfO4ucSFusN/Ny38KRWS0zdQCCW0QczeTRJE4EHRjpKV06Jpgao99nX2mkVH WWQUdWEoMpyLfPEpzjAqZRIMTKjg+zbyyaXgBPe+AACd7K6kgx69dlIvcsTCDkk8 YslRB5yZmo4WO05mXXWMOtZ+h5/iVpNJWZCzBgGB0/vVldMm593/qZOqgixpweks FUxHvzpon0aqEUm2PCAV1Rr8TjOOmUHpwQvSgLWCVr8Ro32pxmVnuKU+XH8k3nc0 DxY7+D2Da+uBkax/NSXSW5vN+Ri/JY7Ghum5+03eKw== =MVDF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Mar 6 16:59:00 2015 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:59:00 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578A9A@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> References: <464A9592-C3C0-46EB-996E-04D34FB57AAF@consensus.pro> <54F786E9.7010106@piratpartiet.se> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577F5C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578A9A@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: ​FWIW Gigi Sohn of the FCC was at the F2C conference earlier in the week.​ ​She talked about how they were having to amend the rules to take into account the lengthy dissents from the Republican commissioners, otherwise they would be challengeable. ​https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/F2C2015/videos/79086274 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Mar 6 18:21:01 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:21:01 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [Members] One view of what happened at the UNESCO conference In-Reply-To: <006101d0584f$8bc182c0$a3448840$@ch> References: <006101d0584f$8bc182c0$a3448840$@ch> Message-ID: <007601d05864$36758630$a3609290$@gmail.com> Richard doesn't subscribe to either of these lists so I'm passing this along on his behalf. Please note that the issue of the suppression of the terminology of "democracy" in the UNESCO statement is not simply about words. It is more directly about the attempt to suppress or replace democratic practice with multistakeholderism initially in areas of Internet Governance but (based on published USG documents) in a wide range of global (and presumably other) decision making processes. Thus the "red line" that was crossed by various parties (presumably by some, without thinking through its significance) in agreeing to or supporting this suppression process is of much deeper and wider ranging significance than one isolated document in a flurry of other documents. I would expect, given this and the below that various individuals and organizations particularly but not exclusively in civil society might wish to disavow themselves of the Outcome Statement and thus disassociate themselves from this blatant attempt at shifting the global decision making paradigm from one that is based on a foundation of democratic norms and aspirations to one anchored in elite based multi-stakeholder decision processes. M -----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hill Sent: March 6, 2015 12:53 PM To: members at justnetcoalition.org Subject: [Members] One view of what happened at the UNESCO conference Dear all, Here is the chronological account of what I experienced happened at the UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference. I have the various E-Mails referred to below, in case anybody wants to see them. I also have a record of the amendments that I proposed verbally. I only kept careful track of my interventions and comments regarding my interventions, so I focus on that here. But other JNC members made interventions. So they may wish to add to this record of what happened. 3 March, 18h30: during the drafting group session, I proposed text changes to ensure that the references to human rights referred to all human rights, not just some, and to include the word democracy. There was no opposition to my proposals regarding human rights. Jeremy Malcolm objected to the inclusion of democracy on the grounds that it brought in baggage. The US supported Jeremy's objection. I had informal conversations with Jeremy and the US after the session. Jeremy listened but didn't say much. The US said that they could not accept inclusion of democracy because it could refer to multi-lateral. I asked them to provide alternate language. They said they were not prepared to do that. 3 March, 19h15: E-mail from R. Hill suggesting that the preamble of the outcome statement refer to all human rights, not just some. Exact text was proposed. 3 March, 20h15: E-mail from R. Hill stating that democracy is a fundamental right and so should be reflected in the outcome statement. I suggested two possible formulations. 4 March, 08h05: E-Mail from R. Hill again stating that democracy is fundamental and proposing an alternative way of incorporating the concept. 4 March, 08h10: E-Mail from R. Hill confirming the previous proposal to reword to reflect that all human rights must be respected, not just some. 4 March, 11h15: during breakout session 16, Options for Future Action-2, I brought up the democracy issue, stating that it is a fundamental right and that it should be included in the outcome statement. There were no objections and the chairman agreed to present this to the last plenary session. 4 March, 13h00: during the drafting group session, I presented the proposals regarding human rights and democracy. There were no objections to my proposals regarding human rights. There was one statement of support for my proposal regarding democracy, and only one objection. Sweden objected to its inclusion stating that the term "is ill-defined and adds a lot of baggage". Much later, towards the end of the session, the US stated that it supported Sweden regarding not including democracy. At this session, there were numerous interventions from civil society to improve the language regarding privacy, intermediary liability, and other topics; and to add network neutrality. I supported the suggestions to strengthen the language regarding privacy. New Zealand and the US objected to making changes regarding privacy. There were objections regarding network neutrality. I don't recall that any opposition was expressed regarding the other changes. I was operating under the assumption that silence implied consent so, given the short amount of time allocated to the session, I didn't make interventions to support proposals for which there were no objections. After the session, I informed Anriette that including democracy was a red-line issue for JNC. She said that not including it was a red-line issue for many member states. They had sent their comments by E-Mail to the secretariat, so they were not public. 4 March, 14h00: at the plenary session, the chairman of breakout session 16 did not mention the democracy issue in his summary of the session. I took the floor to state that the topic had been discussed and that the session had agreed to present it to plenary, with a recommendation that "democracy" be included in the outcome statement. The chairman confirmed that this was correct. There were no objections or comments from the floor. In my view, consequently, the plenary had accepted inclusion of democracy in the outcome statement. After the session, I informed the secretariat that inclusion of democracy was a red-line issue for JNC and suggested that we try to find compromise language. The secretariat said that they would see what they could do, but never got back to me. 4 March 15h40: the final draft became available. Democracy was not included, nor were any of the other changes requested by me and JNC, nor were many of the changes proposed by civil society. The proposed changes to avoid "cherry picking" of human rights were not included, even though no opposition to those changes had been expressed in the drafting sessions. I again informed the secretariat that the non-inclusion of democracy was not acceptable for JNC, so that we would be forced to make a statement of formal opposition. The secretariat attempted to convince me not do to that. I said that I had no choice. 4 March 16h00: at the final plenary, the chairman introduced the outcome statement. I raised my hand. The chairman and secretariat must have seen it, but the chairman proposed to proceed directly to approval. I was forced to speak up to ask for the floor. The chairman gave me the floor and I made my statement of opposition. After that, the chairman declared that the outcome statement had been approved by consensus. _______________________________________________ Members mailing list From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Mar 6 18:31:02 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:31:02 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [Members] One view of what happened at the UNESCO conference In-Reply-To: <007601d05864$36758630$a3609290$@gmail.com> References: <006101d0584f$8bc182c0$a3448840$@ch> <007601d05864$36758630$a3609290$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008801d05865$9c944bd0$d5bce370$@gmail.com> Richard doesn't subscribe to either of these lists so I'm passing this along on his behalf. Please note that the issue of the suppression of the terminology of "democracy" in the UNESCO statement is not simply about words. It is more directly about the attempt to suppress or replace democratic practice with multistakeholderism initially in areas of Internet Governance but (based on published USG documents) in a wide range of global (and presumably other) decision making processes. Thus the "red line" that was crossed by various parties (presumably by some, without thinking through its significance) in agreeing to or supporting this suppression process is of much deeper and wider ranging significance than one isolated document in a flurry of other documents. I would expect, given this and the below that various individuals and organizations particularly but not exclusively in civil society might wish to disavow themselves of the Outcome Statement and thus disassociate themselves from this blatant attempt at shifting the global decision making paradigm from one that is based on a foundation of democratic norms and aspirations to one anchored in elite based multi-stakeholder decision processes. M -----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hill Sent: March 6, 2015 12:53 PM To: members at justnetcoalition.org Subject: [Members] One view of what happened at the UNESCO conference Dear all, Here is the chronological account of what I experienced happened at the UNESCO Connecting the Dots Conference. I have the various E-Mails referred to below, in case anybody wants to see them. I also have a record of the amendments that I proposed verbally. I only kept careful track of my interventions and comments regarding my interventions, so I focus on that here. But other JNC members made interventions. So they may wish to add to this record of what happened. 3 March, 18h30: during the drafting group session, I proposed text changes to ensure that the references to human rights referred to all human rights, not just some, and to include the word democracy. There was no opposition to my proposals regarding human rights. Jeremy Malcolm objected to the inclusion of democracy on the grounds that it brought in baggage. The US supported Jeremy's objection. I had informal conversations with Jeremy and the US after the session. Jeremy listened but didn't say much. The US said that they could not accept inclusion of democracy because it could refer to multi-lateral. I asked them to provide alternate language. They said they were not prepared to do that. 3 March, 19h15: E-mail from R. Hill suggesting that the preamble of the outcome statement refer to all human rights, not just some. Exact text was proposed. 3 March, 20h15: E-mail from R. Hill stating that democracy is a fundamental right and so should be reflected in the outcome statement. I suggested two possible formulations. 4 March, 08h05: E-Mail from R. Hill again stating that democracy is fundamental and proposing an alternative way of incorporating the concept. 4 March, 08h10: E-Mail from R. Hill confirming the previous proposal to reword to reflect that all human rights must be respected, not just some. 4 March, 11h15: during breakout session 16, Options for Future Action-2, I brought up the democracy issue, stating that it is a fundamental right and that it should be included in the outcome statement. There were no objections and the chairman agreed to present this to the last plenary session. 4 March, 13h00: during the drafting group session, I presented the proposals regarding human rights and democracy. There were no objections to my proposals regarding human rights. There was one statement of support for my proposal regarding democracy, and only one objection. Sweden objected to its inclusion stating that the term "is ill-defined and adds a lot of baggage". Much later, towards the end of the session, the US stated that it supported Sweden regarding not including democracy. At this session, there were numerous interventions from civil society to improve the language regarding privacy, intermediary liability, and other topics; and to add network neutrality. I supported the suggestions to strengthen the language regarding privacy. New Zealand and the US objected to making changes regarding privacy. There were objections regarding network neutrality. I don't recall that any opposition was expressed regarding the other changes. I was operating under the assumption that silence implied consent so, given the short amount of time allocated to the session, I didn't make interventions to support proposals for which there were no objections. After the session, I informed Anriette that including democracy was a red-line issue for JNC. She said that not including it was a red-line issue for many member states. They had sent their comments by E-Mail to the secretariat, so they were not public. 4 March, 14h00: at the plenary session, the chairman of breakout session 16 did not mention the democracy issue in his summary of the session. I took the floor to state that the topic had been discussed and that the session had agreed to present it to plenary, with a recommendation that "democracy" be included in the outcome statement. The chairman confirmed that this was correct. There were no objections or comments from the floor. In my view, consequently, the plenary had accepted inclusion of democracy in the outcome statement. After the session, I informed the secretariat that inclusion of democracy was a red-line issue for JNC and suggested that we try to find compromise language. The secretariat said that they would see what they could do, but never got back to me. 4 March 15h40: the final draft became available. Democracy was not included, nor were any of the other changes requested by me and JNC, nor were many of the changes proposed by civil society. The proposed changes to avoid "cherry picking" of human rights were not included, even though no opposition to those changes had been expressed in the drafting sessions. I again informed the secretariat that the non-inclusion of democracy was not acceptable for JNC, so that we would be forced to make a statement of formal opposition. The secretariat attempted to convince me not do to that. I said that I had no choice. 4 March 16h00: at the final plenary, the chairman introduced the outcome statement. I raised my hand. The chairman and secretariat must have seen it, but the chairman proposed to proceed directly to approval. I was forced to speak up to ask for the floor. The chairman gave me the floor and I made my statement of opposition. After that, the chairman declared that the outcome statement had been approved by consensus. _______________________________________________ Members mailing list From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Fri Mar 6 20:06:44 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:06:44 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules In-Reply-To: <3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> References: <464A9592-C3C0-46EB-996E-04D34FB57AAF@consensus.pro> <54F786E9.7010106@piratpartiet.se> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577F5C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> Message-ID: Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of "technology neutrality." This is, at best, a sort of "last draft" principle. That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the technical ways of things. Then once you understand the principle that you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while generalizing it to be independent of technology. But when you do so, it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is often technical in effect. Most often, especially when you hear it from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and in international discussions, that often comes across as a conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would want to push the point, huh? But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change. And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its implications are; or about how general the technology is. In any case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much* the issue, and you have to get that down. *Before* you just accept "let's be technology neutral." And *before* you proceed to a sort of "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally in order for it not to be about particular technologies. Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen. Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much UN-related processes set terms in advance. The implications for this so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding these international processes. The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope." But note: 1) the US did not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect* the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up. i.e., the US said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" -- but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been doing so. 2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really all it does is assure that things stayed the same. Similar things happen in many of these arenas. Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy -- beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the principle is. So don't take it too seriously. You still have to do the policy development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that. I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft" notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy development is alive. Seth On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: > > For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very > good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The > second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" > which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which > has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and > services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the > public. > > In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications > transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public > telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport > service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the > public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, > telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time > transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points > without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's > information." > > As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." > > The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: > "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any > electromagnetic means." > > For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to > learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be > argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to > how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at > this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's > the term used for WTO member-countries): > > (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may > use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the > movement of information within and across borders, including for > intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to > information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable > form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member > significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to > consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. > > (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures > as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, > subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner > which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination > or a disguised restriction on trade in services. > > (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and > use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than > as necessary: > > (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public > telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their > ability to make their networks or services available to the public > generally; > > > (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications > transport networks or services; or > > > (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply > services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. > > > (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), > conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport > networks and services may include: > > (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; > > > (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including > interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; > > > (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such > services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph > 7(a); > > > (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the > network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such > equipment to such networks; > > > (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits > with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another > service supplier; or > > > (vi) notification, registration and licensing. > > > (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing > country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place > reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications > transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic > telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its > participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such > conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. > > > > > > > On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik > wrote: > > To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels > on 2 March 2015: > > (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic > communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby > connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective > of the network technology and terminal equipment used; > > (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an > undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly > available electronic communications services. > > What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package > change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? > > Best regards. > > //Erik > > ________________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter > [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] > Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules > > Dear all, > > For completion, the European Union has defined "information society > services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, > that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a > distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a > recipient of services." > > See > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN > > > This should be the amended act: > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 > > > These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the > network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may > be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should > be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy > obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public > authorities were that to be the case. > > best regards, > > Amelia > > On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > Dear Seth and others, > > With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally > designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be > out-of-date the moment they were made. > > It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take > place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. > > I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely > recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found > here: > http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent > > As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your > best source, see here: > https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm > > I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood > the tests of time quite well. > > On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: > > That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re > the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the > source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. > It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because > WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel > wrote: > > See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: > http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in > particular: > > (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier > services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, > images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and > television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile > services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and > support services. It does not include the value of the information > transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet > backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access > to the Internet. > > [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer > services (hardware and software related services and data processing > services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and > feature articles to the media), and other information provision services > (database services and web search portals) > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson > Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 > To: Nick Ashton-Hart > Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules > > Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs > telecommunication service? > > I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two > categories. > > Not here: > https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm > > Or here (telecom, but not info service): > http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en > > > Seth > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: > > These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you > may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider > carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. > > > On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: > > Dear Marilia, > > Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish > with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV > document is more than welcome. > > For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it > is not clear the difference between "information services" and > "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that > difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. > > Best > > Eduardo > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in > Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that > might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN > debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate > the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights > Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). > > The document will be updated as more information is made available. > Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF > 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing > > > Best wishes, > CTS/FGV > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito > Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - > FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine > Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital > Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Mar 3 04:17:44 2015 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:17:44 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules Message-ID: Dear all, The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). The document will be updated as more information is made available. Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing Best wishes, CTS/FGV -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Fri Mar 6 20:30:10 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:30:10 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] On "Technology Neutrality" Message-ID: I'm sending this again with a changed subject line; see text replied-in below. A couple of analyses of interest in this light, related to the example of WCIT: http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2012/12/13/35/ http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2012/12/02/whats-really-up-at-the-wcit/ Seth On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of > "technology neutrality." This is, at best, a sort of "last draft" > principle. That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop > the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the > technical ways of things. Then once you understand the principle that > you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while > generalizing it to be independent of technology. But when you do so, > it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is > often technical in effect. Most often, especially when you hear it > from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and > in international discussions, that often comes across as a > conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would > want to push the point, huh? > > But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle > manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change. > And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what > it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its > implications are; or about how general the technology is. In any > case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term > "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical > nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much* > the issue, and you have to get that down. *Before* you just accept > "let's be technology neutral." And *before* you proceed to a sort of > "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally > in order for it not to be about particular technologies. > > Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says > zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its > technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen. > > Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much > UN-related processes set terms in advance. The implications for this > so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are > very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding > these international processes. > > The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they > were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope." But note: 1) the US did > not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect* > the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up. i.e., the US > said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU > had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" -- > but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed > to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been > doing so. 2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to > the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really > all it does is assure that things stayed the same. > > Similar things happen in many of these arenas. > > Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and > information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the > notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy -- > beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and > that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the > principle is. > > So don't take it too seriously. You still have to do the policy > development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that. > I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft" > notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy > development is alive. > > > Seth > > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: >> >> For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very >> good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The >> second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" >> which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which >> has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and >> services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the >> public. >> >> In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications >> transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public >> telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport >> service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the >> public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, >> telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time >> transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points >> without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's >> information." >> >> As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." >> >> The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: >> "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any >> electromagnetic means." >> >> For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to >> learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be >> argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to >> how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at >> this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's >> the term used for WTO member-countries): >> >> (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may >> use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the >> movement of information within and across borders, including for >> intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to >> information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable >> form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member >> significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to >> consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. >> >> (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures >> as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, >> subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner >> which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination >> or a disguised restriction on trade in services. >> >> (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and >> use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than >> as necessary: >> >> (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public >> telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their >> ability to make their networks or services available to the public >> generally; >> >> >> (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications >> transport networks or services; or >> >> >> (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply >> services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. >> >> >> (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), >> conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport >> networks and services may include: >> >> (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; >> >> >> (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including >> interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; >> >> >> (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such >> services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph >> 7(a); >> >> >> (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the >> network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such >> equipment to such networks; >> >> >> (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits >> with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another >> service supplier; or >> >> >> (vi) notification, registration and licensing. >> >> >> (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing >> country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place >> reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications >> transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic >> telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its >> participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such >> conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik >> wrote: >> >> To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels >> on 2 March 2015: >> >> (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic >> communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby >> connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective >> of the network technology and terminal equipment used; >> >> (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an >> undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly >> available electronic communications services. >> >> What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package >> change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? >> >> Best regards. >> >> //Erik >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter >> [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] >> Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >> >> Dear all, >> >> For completion, the European Union has defined "information society >> services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, >> that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a >> distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a >> recipient of services." >> >> See >> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN >> >> >> This should be the amended act: >> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 >> >> >> These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the >> network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may >> be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should >> be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy >> obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public >> authorities were that to be the case. >> >> best regards, >> >> Amelia >> >> On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> Dear Seth and others, >> >> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally >> designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be >> out-of-date the moment they were made. >> >> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take >> place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. >> >> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely >> recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found >> here: >> http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent >> >> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your >> best source, see here: >> https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm >> >> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood >> the tests of time quite well. >> >> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: >> >> That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re >> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the >> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. >> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because >> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel >> wrote: >> >> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: >> http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in >> particular: >> >> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier >> services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, >> images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and >> television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile >> services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and >> support services. It does not include the value of the information >> transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet >> backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access >> to the Internet. >> >> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer >> services (hardware and software related services and data processing >> services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and >> feature articles to the media), and other information provision services >> (database services and web search portals) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson >> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 >> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >> >> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs >> telecommunication service? >> >> I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two >> categories. >> >> Not here: >> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm >> >> Or here (telecom, but not info service): >> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en >> >> >> Seth >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >> wrote: >> >> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you >> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider >> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. >> >> >> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >> >> Dear Marilia, >> >> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish >> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV >> document is more than welcome. >> >> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it >> is not clear the difference between "information services" and >> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that >> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. >> >> Best >> >> Eduardo >> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel >> >> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in >> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that >> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN >> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate >> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights >> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). >> >> The document will be updated as more information is made available. >> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF >> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> Best wishes, >> CTS/FGV >> >> -- >> Marília Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Fri Mar 6 20:43:31 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:43:31 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] On "Technology Neutrality" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > I'm sending this again with a changed subject line; see text replied-in below. > > A couple of analyses of interest in this light, related to the example of WCIT: > http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2012/12/13/35/ > http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2012/12/02/whats-really-up-at-the-wcit/ The second link has a specific section on Technology Neutrality. > Seth > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >> Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of >> "technology neutrality." This is, at best, a sort of "last draft" >> principle. That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop >> the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the >> technical ways of things. Then once you understand the principle that >> you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while >> generalizing it to be independent of technology. But when you do so, >> it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is >> often technical in effect. Most often, especially when you hear it >> from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and >> in international discussions, that often comes across as a >> conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would >> want to push the point, huh? >> >> But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle >> manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change. >> And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what >> it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its >> implications are; or about how general the technology is. In any >> case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term >> "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical >> nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much* >> the issue, and you have to get that down. *Before* you just accept >> "let's be technology neutral." And *before* you proceed to a sort of >> "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally >> in order for it not to be about particular technologies. >> >> Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says >> zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its >> technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen. >> >> Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much >> UN-related processes set terms in advance. The implications for this >> so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are >> very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding >> these international processes. >> >> The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they >> were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope." But note: 1) the US did >> not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect* >> the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up. i.e., the US >> said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU >> had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" -- >> but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed >> to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been >> doing so. 2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to >> the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really >> all it does is assure that things stayed the same. >> >> Similar things happen in many of these arenas. >> >> Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and >> information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the >> notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy -- >> beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and >> that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the >> principle is. >> >> So don't take it too seriously. You still have to do the policy >> development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that. >> I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft" >> notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy >> development is alive. >> >> >> Seth >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: >>> >>> For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very >>> good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The >>> second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" >>> which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which >>> has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and >>> services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the >>> public. >>> >>> In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications >>> transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public >>> telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport >>> service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the >>> public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, >>> telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time >>> transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points >>> without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's >>> information." >>> >>> As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." >>> >>> The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: >>> "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any >>> electromagnetic means." >>> >>> For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to >>> learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be >>> argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to >>> how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at >>> this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's >>> the term used for WTO member-countries): >>> >>> (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may >>> use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the >>> movement of information within and across borders, including for >>> intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to >>> information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable >>> form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member >>> significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to >>> consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. >>> >>> (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures >>> as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, >>> subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner >>> which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination >>> or a disguised restriction on trade in services. >>> >>> (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and >>> use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than >>> as necessary: >>> >>> (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public >>> telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their >>> ability to make their networks or services available to the public >>> generally; >>> >>> >>> (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications >>> transport networks or services; or >>> >>> >>> (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply >>> services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. >>> >>> >>> (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), >>> conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport >>> networks and services may include: >>> >>> (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; >>> >>> >>> (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including >>> interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; >>> >>> >>> (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such >>> services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph >>> 7(a); >>> >>> >>> (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the >>> network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such >>> equipment to such networks; >>> >>> >>> (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits >>> with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another >>> service supplier; or >>> >>> >>> (vi) notification, registration and licensing. >>> >>> >>> (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing >>> country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place >>> reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications >>> transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic >>> telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its >>> participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such >>> conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik >>> wrote: >>> >>> To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels >>> on 2 March 2015: >>> >>> (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic >>> communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby >>> connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective >>> of the network technology and terminal equipment used; >>> >>> (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an >>> undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly >>> available electronic communications services. >>> >>> What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package >>> change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? >>> >>> Best regards. >>> >>> //Erik >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter >>> [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] >>> Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 >>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> For completion, the European Union has defined "information society >>> services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, >>> that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a >>> distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a >>> recipient of services." >>> >>> See >>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN >>> >>> >>> This should be the amended act: >>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 >>> >>> >>> These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the >>> network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may >>> be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should >>> be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy >>> obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public >>> authorities were that to be the case. >>> >>> best regards, >>> >>> Amelia >>> >>> On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> >>> Dear Seth and others, >>> >>> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally >>> designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be >>> out-of-date the moment they were made. >>> >>> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take >>> place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. >>> >>> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely >>> recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found >>> here: >>> http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent >>> >>> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your >>> best source, see here: >>> https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm >>> >>> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood >>> the tests of time quite well. >>> >>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: >>> >>> That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re >>> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the >>> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. >>> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because >>> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel >>> wrote: >>> >>> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: >>> http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in >>> particular: >>> >>> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier >>> services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, >>> images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and >>> television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile >>> services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and >>> support services. It does not include the value of the information >>> transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet >>> backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access >>> to the Internet. >>> >>> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer >>> services (hardware and software related services and data processing >>> services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and >>> feature articles to the media), and other information provision services >>> (database services and web search portals) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson >>> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 >>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>> >>> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs >>> telecommunication service? >>> >>> I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two >>> categories. >>> >>> Not here: >>> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm >>> >>> Or here (telecom, but not info service): >>> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en >>> >>> >>> Seth >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >>> wrote: >>> >>> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you >>> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider >>> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. >>> >>> >>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>> >>> Dear Marilia, >>> >>> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish >>> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV >>> document is more than welcome. >>> >>> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it >>> is not clear the difference between "information services" and >>> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that >>> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Eduardo >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in >>> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that >>> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN >>> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate >>> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights >>> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). >>> >>> The document will be updated as more information is made available. >>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF >>> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> CTS/FGV >>> >>> -- >>> Marília Maciel >>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >>> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >>> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >>> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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 pouzin at well.com Sat Mar 7 00:09:56 2015 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 06:09:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: This Connecting the Dots conference was more of a Dotting the I's, to make sure the message was clear The outcome document was endorsed by applause, à la Net Mundial, without signatories. By diktat, "democracy" is now incompatible with multi-stakeholder. This confirms that "multi-stakeholder" is window-dressing, since it clearly means *multi-stakeholdup* of UN by the USG. . Cheers. Louis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 7 06:00:35 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:30:35 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> Message-ID: <54FADA53.3020802@itforchange.net> Dear Shawna Thanks for your response. I will still stick to my lean and mean question - what are the proposed mechanisms for making global public policy 'decisions' in relation to the Internet? Your response, as Michael says, is to describe an elaborate consultative or public participaiton process (however, let me know if it is meant as a decision taking one, and if so, how.). We all agree on such deep consultative/ participative processes, they have always been a part of the movement for participatory democracy . There are theories and theories on it, and so many documented practices. It is generally called public consultation and participation in policy making. How is multistakeholderism different from this robust and historically located processes of public consultation and participation. You know of the now almost proverbial Porto Alegro experiment. And well, closer home, thematically that is, we have the marco civil legislation in Brazil. Do you mean a macro civil kind of legislative process? If so, lets close an agreement on it, but transposing it to the global level. What does multistakeholderism (MSism) add to this existing terminology and movement of participatory democracy - which as I said, and unlike MSism, has elaborate theories, methodologies, established and growing practices, and so on. No, it does not add anything but takes away a lot. ( I dont want to digress, and I will mention some points on this separately, but quickly, participatory democracy is genuinely people centric, and MSism, as practices in the IG space, is corporate-centric. I am ready to discuss this point, and show why. ) Again, just quickly, IT for Change works on village assemblies, and then separately women's village assemblies, to influence the agenda of village self governance bodies. At the national level, we along with our civil society (CS) colleagues have been doing advocacy for developing statutory provisions for public participation in legislative processes (see an enclosed draft which was evolved). Some of the most senior CS drafters of this document are JNC members and decry the kind of MS processes we see in global IG ans corporate centric and consider them not conducive to democracy. In defending it, one cant just put the label of MSism on hallowed principles and processes of participatory democracy which is an existing and a very different field. (At the last regional Asia Pacific IGF, I asked for a conference where we get MSists together with theorists and practitioners of participatory democracy, and we will know what is what. I still want such a global conference if possible. Any interest?) And, so back to my lean and mean question - what are the proposed mechanisms for making global public policy 'decisions' in relation to the Internet? All key serious actors in the global IG space must answer this question. I will describe why. I gave two examples, a model law on net neutrality, and a high level normative document on 'role of data in the society' . Many such global policy documents are urgently needed in this formative stage of an Internet-mediated society. When we avoid answering the above question, or we say , we do not yet know, we are nilly wily putting our weight on the side of the status quo - as those most powerful - politically and economically - continue to build unassailable positions in the new social ecology. We are doing a distinctly political act. Would you deny this? We cannot work on global policy docs if we do not get past the stage of what are the appropriate mechanisms of developing them. And there is where we are struck - exactly as per the designs of those who do not want policy 'interference' in their global ambitions. So, again, as our first act of political conviction, we must answer this question. And I will request APC as well as all other key actors to put their clear views out on this issue. Since clear details and examples help, pl do give full details of the process, and do address the two examples I proposed, or other similar ones. JNC has answered all questions that have been put to us, and publicly (let us know if any is left out, and we will). The above question we ask is a simple and basic political one, for anyone doing political work at the global IG stage. I cant see how anyone can avoid answering this question - which of course does not mean everyone will have the same recommendation for the appropriate mechanisms. parminder On Saturday 07 March 2015 01:05 AM, Shawna Finnegan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Michael, Parminder > > Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I will try to respond to the > points that you have both raised, reminding you that I am speaking > from personal opinion, and not as an APC representative. > > On 15-03-05 04:20 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Those are very good questions Shawna and let me try to answer in >> discursive rather than declarative mode... >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan >> [mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 2:22 PM To: Michael >> Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at >> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> >> >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> >> Michael, >> >> >> >> Could you please describe the precise fears that you have of a >> global governance paradigm based on multi-stakeholder processes? >> >> >> >> */[MG] That is a difficult question since honestly I am quite >> unclear as to which of the variety of stakeholder models is being >> proposed at any particular time or in any particular context, which >> of course is one of the major sources of hesitation that I have >> with these kinds of proposals. Before entering into a decision >> making process and particularly one that will have real and >> potentially very significant consequences I want to know what the >> rules of the game are. Who is involved, where they came, who are >> they accountable to and how, what overall structures of >> accountability will be in place, what decision making >> rules/procedures will be followed, and so on and so on. >> Unfortunately with the way in MSism is conventionally presented it >> is rather buying a "pig in a poke"... one is expected to buy into >> the meme and then take one's chances with whatever turns up re: >> what will actually occur in a specific decision making context. My >> own experiences in attempting to participate in MS processes as >> evidenced in my blog give some indication at a micro-level of what >> is involved./* >> > sf: That is an interesting analogy for multi-stakeholder processes. As > a relative newcomer, my impression is that the rules of the 'game' are > still being determined, based on some core principles. Given the > complexity of IG history, actors and spaces, as well as the technical > infrastructure and global politics, I am not at all surprised that > these processes continue to change and evolve in different contexts. > > However you could certainly make the argument that CS should not > engage in any process without clearly defined rules and structures of > accountability, especially if there is a high risk of capture by > private interests. I'd argue that private interests would continue to > influence the rules to their benefit, but it would at least address > some issues of accountability. > > This might be a good point to address Parminder's question to Anriette > on Feb 27: > > "Say, for instance, it was found useful to write a global normative > document on the 'role on data in the society', which would enable > countries to begin understanding this new terrain in normative terms > and can help the necessary legislative and regulatory work. (There are > innumerable such important documents, like on health, education, etc > written regularly at UN bodies.) In order to make it more concrete, > let us say, UNESCO was asked to do it. Who do think should make and > decide on the final document - governments, or governments and > corporates on an equal footing?" > > Why do you exclude civil society from the decision? My personal > perspective would be for the final document to be agreed upon by as > representative a group of stakeholders as possible. The role of data > in society will be understood differently by individuals within the > technical community, end users, academics, corporations and government > representatives, all relative to where they are in the world and what > their experiences have been. If the document is to have any real > significance, those affected by it must feel they have some ownership > over it, that their perspective of the role of data in society has > been somehow taken into consideration. > > How could we go about this in practice? Intensive outreach. Start with > local discussion groups of different stakeholders, ideally open to > anyone interested. These groups could sugget key text, red lines, > whatever they think is important to consider for the document. A few > representatives (chosen by whatever method the group decides is fair) > could then take those views to national and regional discussion groups > of diverse stakeholders. From there another group of regional > representatives would be chosen to engage in drafting the document. > The text would be available online, and representatives at this global > drafting would be responsible for going back to their regional groups, > which would in turn communicate with national and local groups. > > It is a complex, expensive and time-consuming proposal, but I think it > would be much more effective than a purely state based process. > >> */ /* >> >> */Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to >> know how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and >> not just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will. My >> observation is that MS processes do not work very well at all when >> there is conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of >> the approach is one where participants are involved specifically >> because they come from different contexts with presumably different >> interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various >> kinds. My observation is that when a MS process is subject to >> conflict or stress it immediately reverts to a defensive and >> control mode where privileged insiders close ranks, extrude the >> conflict (and its individual sources) and proceed as though nothing >> had occurred – in this way they are achieving consensus (which is >> of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects nothing more >> than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and >> satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond >> to divergent positions and interests./* > sf: Could you provide an example of an MS process subject to conflict > or stress that immediately reverted to defensive and controlled mode? > Was your interpretation that the CS involved were privileged insiders, > with their own interests? >> */ /* >> >> */Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite >> capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups >> since these groups have in most cases no obvious internal >> structures for ensuring appropriate levels of effective >> accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic >> elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage" >> these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able >> to do in the absence of some form of external (state based) >> structures of enforcing accountability, transparency etc. In the >> sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which >> ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of >> value. Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil >> society (or government such as those found in many LDC’s for that >> matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and >> will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour >> of elite and dominant interests./* >> > sf: I think here we again differ in our expectations of state based > structures of enforcing accountability. Government institutions may > have rules and structures to hold themselves accountable to the > people, but in practice they are incredibly vulnerable to those same > resources that you believe are irresistible to some civil society and > governments in MS processes. The risk of elite interests capturing > decision-making processes is high no matter what you do. Structures of > accountability only work if there is sustained engagement from people > outside the process, particularly civil society and media. > > In this regard I think that some of the questions arising in this > UNESCO thread are extremely valuable to the ongoing accountability of > CS engaged in multi-stakeholder processes. Some questions, on the > other hand, are framed purely as accusations, and in my opinion are > intended to divide civil society. >> >> */ /* >> >> I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US >> government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing >> global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying >> societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a >> paradigm. >> >> >> >> */[MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to >> redouble efforts to make democratic governance more effective and >> responsive rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that >> something (anything) might be better… /* > sf: Who is suggesting that we toss democratic governance? >> >> >> */ /* >> >> Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of >> democratic pluralism. >> >> >> >> */[MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the >> “democratic” comes in… perhaps you could explain./* > sf: I think the proposal that I suggested above for drafting a > document on the role of data in society is a good example of > democratic decision-making, with multiple layers of representation and > accountability. >> */ /* >> >> */ /* >> >> Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the >> same way as democratic processes. >> >> >> >> */[MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at >> least the possibility of rectification. With legitimized control >> by powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I >> can see at rectification. Those interests are in fact legally >> obliged (under current law) to maximize their individual interests >> whatever the collective good. > sf: They maximize profit, so our recourse is to put their profit at > risk. It is not easy, particularly when choices are limited, but civil > society has had past success in pressuring companies to change their > behaviour for the benefit of the collective good. > > I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter >> campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends – how exactly do I >> influence Google or Disney or… for Google I can’t even find a >> phone number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision >> that they have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and >> more effective means for achieving democratic accountability and >> better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic >> decision making—but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have >> been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and >> struggle for an undefined “pig in a poke” doesn’t seem to me to be >> a very good social trade off to be making./* >> > sf: I still do not understand why you believe that engaging in > multi-stakeholder processes is effectively tossing out the gains made > in democratic decision-making. >> >> Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am >> surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional >> civil society grouping to shun an organization that did not >> actively endorse democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a >> fundamental principle. Democracy is a system of government. In >> practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate us and >> legitimize powerful interests. >> >> */ /* >> >> */[MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics >> and structures of democratic governance from the norms and >> principles of democracy. > sf: Yes, it is necessary to separate in some way. but also to consider > whether and how the norms and principles of democracy have been > implemented in practice. If our existing structures have been wholly > insufficient to achieve the principles of democracy, then we must > seriously reconsider those structures. > > Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may >> have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn’t mean >> that the aspiration of the people towards self-governance, >> empowerment, and social justice is not an appropriate aspiration >> which is to be lightly and cavalierly rejected in favour of >> governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) >> elites./* >> > sf: Why must we abandon aspirations towards self-governance, > empowerment and social justice in order to engage in multi-stakeholder > processes? >> >> I very much agree that decisions made by civil society >> organizations now, even if through non-action, will have >> significant consequences long-term. And I agree that sometimes >> civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Perhaps we should >> have red lines. That is an important discussion to have. >> >> */ /* >> >> */[MG] yes../* > sf: I think this returns us to the point raised by Parminder on why CS > at the UNESCO meeting did not put their foot down against those who > said 'democracy has baggage' (in this context). If the individuals > present in the negotiations were representing our wider civil society, > and the consensus of our wider civil society is that democracy must be > included in all documents relating to internet governance, then > perhaps they should have walked out of the negotiations. However, I > don't think that there is necessarily consensus that democracy must be > included in all documents relating to internet governance, > particularly when the link is being made to a multilateral framing. >> */ /* >> >> */BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder >> governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) >> other areas of governance. Is this the official position of >> APC?/* > sf: You heard incorrectly. I am simply trying to understand how you > view MS processes to be in direct conflict with democracy, and am > poking a few holes in the perspective that governments are the ideal > gatekeepers of internet policy. > > As for APC's official position, I believe that I addressed that > question with the excerpt I sent from the WGEC submission. > > Looking forward to your thoughts, > > Shawna >> */ /* >> >> */M/* >> >> >> >> Shawna >> >> >> >> On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >>> Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion... >> >> >>> Just a couple of things... >> >> >>> An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its >>> willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have >>> been >>> trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a >>> qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, >>> to >>> one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in >>> the >>> context of Internet Governance. APC could (and in my opinion >>> should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial >>> of >>> democracy as a fundamental governance principle. >> >> >>> Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear >>> indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of >>> "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a >>> clear >>> indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who >>> signed on >>> to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there >>> is a >>> clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those >>> who >>> signed on to this agreement. >> >> >>> And please be aware that this is not trivial... >> >> >>> The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that >>> they see >>> MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the >>> wide >>> variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in >>> security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of >>> "democracy" >>> as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration >>> of >>> what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global >>> decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position? >> >> >>> The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of >>> governance >>> by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC and others means >>> that the >>> necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most >>> effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not >>> completely >>> ignored, of course further empowering the elites and the 1%. >>> Again is >>> this APC's preferred position? >> >> >>> So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through >>> non-action >>> rather than action will contribute to very significant >>> consequences in >>> the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and >>> others >>> who are so blithely jumping on the MS >>> bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of >>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of >>> their >>> own normative structures...? >> >> >>> Best, >> >> >>> M >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan >>> [mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael >>> Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> ; >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at >> >>> UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> >>> Dear Michael, >> >> >>> While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the >>> discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to >>> your >>> question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour >>> notions of >>> 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy. >> >> >>> In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has >>> been >>> that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various >>> multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether >>> it >>> is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we >>> support >>> our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and >>> actively >>> engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights >>> Council. >> >> >>> Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing >>> discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced >>> cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder >>> participation >>> is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet >>> governance: >> >> >>> "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is >>> a >>> means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet >>> governance >>> that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the >>> Geneva >>> Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and >>> prosperous world.” >> >> >>> (from our submission: >>> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf >>> ) >> >> >>> There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' >>> over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC >>> engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect >>> change. >> >> >>> Shawna >> >> >>> On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>>> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off >>>> on by >>>> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference >>>> to >>>> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology >>>> of >>>> "multistakeholderism >> " >> >> >> >> >> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of >> social >> >>>> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack >>>> of >>>> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite >>>> "demeaning" >>>> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty. >>>> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of >>>> the >>>> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and >>>> equally >>>> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the >>>> Civil >>>> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus >>>> provide >>>> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document >>>> should I >>>> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent >>>> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being >>>> evolved") in this sphere. >>>> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of >>>> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of >>>> its own >>>> normative structures as I queried in my previous email? >>>> M >>>> -----Original Message----- From: >>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Anriette >>>> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> >>>> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >>>> "Connecting >>>> the Dots Conference" >>>> Dear all >>>> Just an explanation and some context. >>>> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role >>>> was to >>>> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair >>>> and >>>> secretariat in compiling drafts. >>>> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority >>>> of >>>> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and >>>> onsite. >>>> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC >>>> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the >>>> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which >>>> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final >>>> draft). >>>> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for >>>> any >>>> reason other than it came during the final session and the >>>> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked >>>> directly to the Study. >>>> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and >>>> to >>>> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final >>>> study >>>> report rather than in the outcome statement. >>>> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome >>>> of the >>>> discussion. >>>> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never >>>> really >>>> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic >>>> to >>>> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the >>>> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks >>>> for >>>> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the >>>> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a >>>> very >>>> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so >>>> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is >>>> directly >>>> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. >>>> This >>>> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can >>>> be >>>> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of >>>> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back >>>> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having >>>> 'democratic' >>>> in front of multistakeholder. >>>> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code >>>> for >>>> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among >>>> governments') into >>>> the text. >>>> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic >>>> multistakeholder', >>>> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded. >>>> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that >>>> they >>>> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and >>>> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple >>>> spaces. >>>> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we >>>> could >>>> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a >>>> reference >>>> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could >>>> not >>>> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him >>>> that >>>> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included. >>>> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this >>>> seriously, but >>>> that the number of objections to this text were far greater >>>> than the >>>> number of requests for putting it in. >>>> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are >>>> negotiated >>>> in this way. >>>> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption >>>> as >>>> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of >>>> expression in >>>> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence >>>> of the >>>> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that >>>> anonymity is illegitimate. >>>> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in >>>> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate >>>> the >>>> gains vs. the losses. >>>> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. >>>> Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence >>>> in the >>>> global south who will put issues that are important to us on >>>> its >>>> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more >>>> people >>>> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to >>>> learn, >>>> participate and influence internet-related debates with >>>> policy-makers. >>>> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really >>>> know >>>> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive >>>> and they >>>> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or >>>> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to >>>> be >>>> the values - of the Just Net Coalition. >>>> Anriette >>>> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100 >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm > >> >> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein >>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and >>>>>>> others on the >>>>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and >>>>>>> "social and >>>>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document >>>>>>> meant to >>>>>>> have global significance? >>>>>> With pleasure. This is why: >>>>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to >>>>>> - >> t >> >>>>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users >>>>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims >>>>> is >>>>> JNC's >>>>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual >>>>> position >>>>> of >>>>> JNC. >>>>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic. >>>>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must >>>>> be >>>>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a >>>>> human >>>>> right, >>>>> even if there are countries where this is not currently >>>>> implemented >>>>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be >>>>> democratic. >>>>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states >>>>> this 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. >>>>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which >>>>> multistakeholderism is >>>>> implemented in a way that is not democratic. >>>>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global >>>>> governance >>>>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our >>>>> foundational >>>>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet >>>>> which are >>>>> democratic *and* participative. >>>>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy >>>>> claims is >>>>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of >>>>> government-led >>>>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative. >>>>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and* >>>>> participative. >>>>> Is that so hard to understand??? >>>>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an >>>>> earlier >>>>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed >>>>> ... the >>>>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be >>>>> quite >>>>> full >>>>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my >>>>> response >>>>> (which >>>>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at >>>>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition >>>>> http://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 >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You >>>> received this message as 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 > > iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJU+gGPAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKT/kL/1AVB2elHc3cWbgrNtyqLlyF > 6A5/Pp+1wXupLU90KOqrXtnfizQeTUlocazv/2ywf5KyjAHeFpk0Z8kzf0Ik2iwh > maZ83sm9bh9hlJ74ZFCmHh9nuvUOnmT4u+dBxSQHhx9T3UKiHM8pAOtQJFNoG7dH > KlhyeszzYoeyCm+9/h7nBjVRmcpkkts+hUM/fFXLSRRMgLIVbWS2/Wj01pgZehbI > puWiPfO4ucSFusN/Ny38KRWS0zdQCCW0QczeTRJE4EHRjpKV06Jpgao99nX2mkVH > WWQUdWEoMpyLfPEpzjAqZRIMTKjg+zbyyaXgBPe+AACd7K6kgx69dlIvcsTCDkk8 > YslRB5yZmo4WO05mXXWMOtZ+h5/iVpNJWZCzBgGB0/vVldMm593/qZOqgixpweks > FUxHvzpon0aqEUm2PCAV1Rr8TjOOmUHpwQvSgLWCVr8Ro32pxmVnuKU+XH8k3nc0 > DxY7+D2Da+uBkax/NSXSW5vN+Ri/JY7Ghum5+03eKw== > =MVDF > -----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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft 9 Pre-Legislative Paper.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 39287 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Mar 7 06:45:37 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 03:45:37 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00f501d058cc$3b2fdeb0$b18f9c10$@gmail.com> Re: the slighting reference below by Benedek to “two concepts important to some” referring specifically to the suppression of the concept of “democracy” by the representative of EFF, of the USG and with the tacit approval of the APC representative (among others) as documented by Richard Hill The victory of democracy in South Africa is the common achievement of all humanity. Nelson Mandela Long Walk to Freedom You may succeed in delaying, but never in preventing the transition of South Africa to a democracy. Nelson Mandela Long Walk to Freedom Democracy is based on the majority principle. This is especially true in a country such as ours where the vast majority have been systematically denied their rights. Nelson Mandela Democracy and respect for human rights have long been central components of U.S. foreign policy. Supporting democracy not only promotes such fundamental American values as religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and prosperous global arena in which the United States can advance its national interests. In addition, democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health. US State Department Somehow I don’t think that Mr. Mandela (or for that matter the US Government in certain of its modes) would accept that “democracy” is a concept suppressable at will for whatever reason or in whatever circumstance. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Sent: March 6, 2015 11:31 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well); <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to deepen their understanding. Wolfgang Benedek Von: "Louis Pouzin (well)" > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org " >, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > Datum: Samstag, 07. März 2015 06:09 An: "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >," >, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org " > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" This Connecting the Dots conference was more of a Dotting the I's, to make sure the message was clear The outcome document was endorsed by applause, à la Net Mundial, without signatories. By diktat, "democracy" is now incompatible with multi-stakeholder. This confirms that "multi-stakeholder" is window-dressing, since it clearly means multi-stakeholdup of UN by the USG. . Cheers. Louis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Sat Mar 7 07:15:09 2015 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 13:15:09 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules In-Reply-To: References: <464A9592-C3C0-46EB-996E-04D34FB57AAF@consensus.pro> <54F786E9.7010106@piratpartiet.se> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577F5C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <40F43B73-622D-431B-A486-5BAB5DF8890C@consensus.pro> Dear Seth, I'm not honestly sure what your response means, to be candid, other than simply saying that you think that technology neutrality is something you add after you've settled on what it is that you want to do with the specific policy in question. I have to say I don't agree with your assessment, simply because it is not my experience that this is how policy is developed, nor do I find that the use of technology neutrality in a policy process is a device used exclusively, or even predominately, by the US: again, my experience is this is used by everyone. Moreover, in some policy areas, technology neutrality is the default position that is the starting place for policy development - trade policy being perhaps the most obvious example, as without tecehnology neutrality in trade negotiations all the outcomes would be defunct before the ink was dry. As a consequence, the point you are making in your second paragraph is not one that stands up to practical application in entire areas of policy development. Finally, for the above reasons, I don't see the final two paragraphs as true, either; it is my direct personal experience that they do not reflect reality in many areas of policy. International policymaking does not start from a place of what is technically desirable or even possible: it starts from what is politically possible, and proceeds from there. I know this is not widely admired by the Internet technical community, and I also understand and agree that this is frustrating and leads to outcomes that aren't well suited to the reality of how things work in some (and perhaps many) cases. But it is the way things are. For myself, I think it is important to be pragmatic and get the best result possible in a given situation based upon its context. Regards, Nick On 7 Mar 2015, at 02:06, Seth Johnson wrote: > Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of > "technology neutrality." This is, at best, a sort of "last draft" > principle. That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop > the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the > technical ways of things. Then once you understand the principle that > you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while > generalizing it to be independent of technology. But when you do so, > it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is > often technical in effect. Most often, especially when you hear it > from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and > in international discussions, that often comes across as a > conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would > want to push the point, huh? > > But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle > manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change. > And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what > it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its > implications are; or about how general the technology is. In any > case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term > "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical > nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much* > the issue, and you have to get that down. *Before* you just accept > "let's be technology neutral." And *before* you proceed to a sort of > "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally > in order for it not to be about particular technologies. > > Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says > zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its > technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen. > > Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much > UN-related processes set terms in advance. The implications for this > so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are > very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding > these international processes. > > The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they > were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope." But note: 1) the US did > not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect* > the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up. i.e., the US > said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU > had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" -- > but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed > to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been > doing so. 2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to > the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really > all it does is assure that things stayed the same. > > Similar things happen in many of these arenas. > > Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and > information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the > notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy -- > beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and > that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the > principle is. > > So don't take it too seriously. You still have to do the policy > development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that. > I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft" > notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy > development is alive. > > > Seth > > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: >> >> For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very >> good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The >> second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" >> which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which >> has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and >> services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the >> public. >> >> In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications >> transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public >> telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport >> service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the >> public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, >> telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time >> transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points >> without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's >> information." >> >> As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." >> >> The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: >> "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any >> electromagnetic means." >> >> For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to >> learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be >> argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to >> how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at >> this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's >> the term used for WTO member-countries): >> >> (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may >> use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the >> movement of information within and across borders, including for >> intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to >> information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable >> form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member >> significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to >> consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. >> >> (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures >> as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, >> subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner >> which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination >> or a disguised restriction on trade in services. >> >> (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and >> use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than >> as necessary: >> >> (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public >> telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their >> ability to make their networks or services available to the public >> generally; >> >> >> (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications >> transport networks or services; or >> >> >> (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply >> services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. >> >> >> (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), >> conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport >> networks and services may include: >> >> (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; >> >> >> (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including >> interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; >> >> >> (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such >> services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph >> 7(a); >> >> >> (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the >> network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such >> equipment to such networks; >> >> >> (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits >> with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another >> service supplier; or >> >> >> (vi) notification, registration and licensing. >> >> >> (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing >> country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place >> reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications >> transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic >> telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its >> participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such >> conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik >> wrote: >> >> To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels >> on 2 March 2015: >> >> (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic >> communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby >> connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective >> of the network technology and terminal equipment used; >> >> (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an >> undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly >> available electronic communications services. >> >> What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package >> change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? >> >> Best regards. >> >> //Erik >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter >> [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] >> Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >> >> Dear all, >> >> For completion, the European Union has defined "information society >> services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, >> that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a >> distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a >> recipient of services." >> >> See >> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN >> >> >> This should be the amended act: >> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 >> >> >> These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the >> network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may >> be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should >> be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy >> obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public >> authorities were that to be the case. >> >> best regards, >> >> Amelia >> >> On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> Dear Seth and others, >> >> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally >> designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be >> out-of-date the moment they were made. >> >> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take >> place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. >> >> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely >> recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found >> here: >> http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent >> >> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your >> best source, see here: >> https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm >> >> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood >> the tests of time quite well. >> >> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: >> >> That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re >> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the >> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. >> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because >> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel >> wrote: >> >> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: >> http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in >> particular: >> >> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier >> services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, >> images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and >> television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile >> services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and >> support services. It does not include the value of the information >> transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet >> backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access >> to the Internet. >> >> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer >> services (hardware and software related services and data processing >> services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and >> feature articles to the media), and other information provision services >> (database services and web search portals) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson >> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 >> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >> >> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs >> telecommunication service? >> >> I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two >> categories. >> >> Not here: >> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm >> >> Or here (telecom, but not info service): >> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en >> >> >> Seth >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >> wrote: >> >> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you >> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider >> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. >> >> >> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >> >> Dear Marilia, >> >> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish >> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV >> document is more than welcome. >> >> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it >> is not clear the difference between "information services" and >> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that >> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. >> >> Best >> >> Eduardo >> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel >> >> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in >> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that >> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN >> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate >> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights >> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). >> >> The document will be updated as more information is made available. >> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF >> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> Best wishes, >> CTS/FGV >> >> -- >> Marília Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 -------------- 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 Sat Mar 7 07:16:29 2015 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 13:16:29 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] On "Technology Neutrality" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8E5B0F8B-C614-41E0-BA15-FDD18135B546@consensus.pro> Interesting, but for what it is worth, WCIT 2012 is very much history. I wouldn't spend a lot of cycles thinking about it. On 7 Mar 2015, at 02:43, Seth Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >> I'm sending this again with a changed subject line; see text replied-in below. >> >> A couple of analyses of interest in this light, related to the example of WCIT: >> http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2012/12/13/35/ >> http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2012/12/02/whats-really-up-at-the-wcit/ > > > The second link has a specific section on Technology Neutrality. > > >> Seth >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >>> Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of >>> "technology neutrality." This is, at best, a sort of "last draft" >>> principle. That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop >>> the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the >>> technical ways of things. Then once you understand the principle that >>> you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while >>> generalizing it to be independent of technology. But when you do so, >>> it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is >>> often technical in effect. Most often, especially when you hear it >>> from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and >>> in international discussions, that often comes across as a >>> conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would >>> want to push the point, huh? >>> >>> But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle >>> manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change. >>> And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what >>> it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its >>> implications are; or about how general the technology is. In any >>> case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term >>> "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical >>> nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much* >>> the issue, and you have to get that down. *Before* you just accept >>> "let's be technology neutral." And *before* you proceed to a sort of >>> "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally >>> in order for it not to be about particular technologies. >>> >>> Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says >>> zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its >>> technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen. >>> >>> Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much >>> UN-related processes set terms in advance. The implications for this >>> so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are >>> very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding >>> these international processes. >>> >>> The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they >>> were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope." But note: 1) the US did >>> not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect* >>> the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up. i.e., the US >>> said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU >>> had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" -- >>> but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed >>> to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been >>> doing so. 2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to >>> the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really >>> all it does is assure that things stayed the same. >>> >>> Similar things happen in many of these arenas. >>> >>> Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and >>> information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the >>> notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy -- >>> beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and >>> that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the >>> principle is. >>> >>> So don't take it too seriously. You still have to do the policy >>> development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that. >>> I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft" >>> notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy >>> development is alive. >>> >>> >>> Seth >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: >>>> >>>> For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very >>>> good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The >>>> second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" >>>> which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which >>>> has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and >>>> services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the >>>> public. >>>> >>>> In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications >>>> transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public >>>> telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport >>>> service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the >>>> public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, >>>> telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time >>>> transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points >>>> without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's >>>> information." >>>> >>>> As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." >>>> >>>> The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: >>>> "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any >>>> electromagnetic means." >>>> >>>> For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to >>>> learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be >>>> argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to >>>> how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at >>>> this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's >>>> the term used for WTO member-countries): >>>> >>>> (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may >>>> use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the >>>> movement of information within and across borders, including for >>>> intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to >>>> information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable >>>> form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member >>>> significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to >>>> consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. >>>> >>>> (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures >>>> as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, >>>> subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner >>>> which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination >>>> or a disguised restriction on trade in services. >>>> >>>> (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and >>>> use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than >>>> as necessary: >>>> >>>> (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public >>>> telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their >>>> ability to make their networks or services available to the public >>>> generally; >>>> >>>> >>>> (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications >>>> transport networks or services; or >>>> >>>> >>>> (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply >>>> services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. >>>> >>>> >>>> (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), >>>> conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport >>>> networks and services may include: >>>> >>>> (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; >>>> >>>> >>>> (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including >>>> interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; >>>> >>>> >>>> (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such >>>> services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph >>>> 7(a); >>>> >>>> >>>> (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the >>>> network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such >>>> equipment to such networks; >>>> >>>> >>>> (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits >>>> with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another >>>> service supplier; or >>>> >>>> >>>> (vi) notification, registration and licensing. >>>> >>>> >>>> (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing >>>> country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place >>>> reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications >>>> transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic >>>> telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its >>>> participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such >>>> conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels >>>> on 2 March 2015: >>>> >>>> (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic >>>> communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby >>>> connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective >>>> of the network technology and terminal equipment used; >>>> >>>> (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an >>>> undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly >>>> available electronic communications services. >>>> >>>> What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package >>>> change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? >>>> >>>> Best regards. >>>> >>>> //Erik >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter >>>> [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] >>>> Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 >>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> For completion, the European Union has defined "information society >>>> services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, >>>> that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a >>>> distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a >>>> recipient of services." >>>> >>>> See >>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN >>>> >>>> >>>> This should be the amended act: >>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 >>>> >>>> >>>> These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the >>>> network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may >>>> be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should >>>> be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy >>>> obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public >>>> authorities were that to be the case. >>>> >>>> best regards, >>>> >>>> Amelia >>>> >>>> On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Seth and others, >>>> >>>> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally >>>> designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be >>>> out-of-date the moment they were made. >>>> >>>> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take >>>> place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. >>>> >>>> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely >>>> recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found >>>> here: >>>> http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent >>>> >>>> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your >>>> best source, see here: >>>> https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm >>>> >>>> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood >>>> the tests of time quite well. >>>> >>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re >>>> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the >>>> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. >>>> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because >>>> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: >>>> http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in >>>> particular: >>>> >>>> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier >>>> services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, >>>> images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and >>>> television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile >>>> services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and >>>> support services. It does not include the value of the information >>>> transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet >>>> backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access >>>> to the Internet. >>>> >>>> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer >>>> services (hardware and software related services and data processing >>>> services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and >>>> feature articles to the media), and other information provision services >>>> (database services and web search portals) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson >>>> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 >>>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>>> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>> >>>> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs >>>> telecommunication service? >>>> >>>> I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two >>>> categories. >>>> >>>> Not here: >>>> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm >>>> >>>> Or here (telecom, but not info service): >>>> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en >>>> >>>> >>>> Seth >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you >>>> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider >>>> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Marilia, >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish >>>> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV >>>> document is more than welcome. >>>> >>>> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it >>>> is not clear the difference between "information services" and >>>> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that >>>> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Eduardo >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in >>>> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that >>>> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN >>>> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate >>>> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights >>>> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). >>>> >>>> The document will be updated as more information is made available. >>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF >>>> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> CTS/FGV >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Marília Maciel >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>>> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >>>> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >>>> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >>>> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as 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 -------------- 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Sat Mar 7 08:24:18 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 08:24:18 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] On "Technology Neutrality" In-Reply-To: <8E5B0F8B-C614-41E0-BA15-FDD18135B546@consensus.pro> References: <8E5B0F8B-C614-41E0-BA15-FDD18135B546@consensus.pro> Message-ID: Hi Nick, good morning. Certainly, but we're still working on the Information Society project. Similar things happened at the ITU Plenipot. Let's keep WCIT in the past, and learn to move forward, where it is at best an illustration. We get similar moves constantly, in fact. Seth On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Interesting, but for what it is worth, WCIT 2012 is very much history. I wouldn't spend a lot of cycles thinking about it. > > On 7 Mar 2015, at 02:43, Seth Johnson wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >>> I'm sending this again with a changed subject line; see text replied-in below. >>> >>> A couple of analyses of interest in this light, related to the example of WCIT: >>> http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2012/12/13/35/ >>> http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/2012/12/02/whats-really-up-at-the-wcit/ >> >> >> The second link has a specific section on Technology Neutrality. >> >> >>> Seth >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: >>>> Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of >>>> "technology neutrality." This is, at best, a sort of "last draft" >>>> principle. That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop >>>> the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the >>>> technical ways of things. Then once you understand the principle that >>>> you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while >>>> generalizing it to be independent of technology. But when you do so, >>>> it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is >>>> often technical in effect. Most often, especially when you hear it >>>> from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and >>>> in international discussions, that often comes across as a >>>> conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would >>>> want to push the point, huh? >>>> >>>> But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle >>>> manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change. >>>> And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what >>>> it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its >>>> implications are; or about how general the technology is. In any >>>> case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term >>>> "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical >>>> nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much* >>>> the issue, and you have to get that down. *Before* you just accept >>>> "let's be technology neutral." And *before* you proceed to a sort of >>>> "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally >>>> in order for it not to be about particular technologies. >>>> >>>> Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says >>>> zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its >>>> technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen. >>>> >>>> Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much >>>> UN-related processes set terms in advance. The implications for this >>>> so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are >>>> very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding >>>> these international processes. >>>> >>>> The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they >>>> were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope." But note: 1) the US did >>>> not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect* >>>> the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up. i.e., the US >>>> said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU >>>> had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" -- >>>> but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed >>>> to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been >>>> doing so. 2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to >>>> the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really >>>> all it does is assure that things stayed the same. >>>> >>>> Similar things happen in many of these arenas. >>>> >>>> Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and >>>> information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the >>>> notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy -- >>>> beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and >>>> that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the >>>> principle is. >>>> >>>> So don't take it too seriously. You still have to do the policy >>>> development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that. >>>> I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft" >>>> notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy >>>> development is alive. >>>> >>>> >>>> Seth >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: >>>>> >>>>> For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very >>>>> good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The >>>>> second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" >>>>> which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which >>>>> has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and >>>>> services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the >>>>> public. >>>>> >>>>> In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications >>>>> transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public >>>>> telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport >>>>> service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the >>>>> public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, >>>>> telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time >>>>> transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points >>>>> without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's >>>>> information." >>>>> >>>>> As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." >>>>> >>>>> The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: >>>>> "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any >>>>> electromagnetic means." >>>>> >>>>> For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to >>>>> learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be >>>>> argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to >>>>> how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at >>>>> this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's >>>>> the term used for WTO member-countries): >>>>> >>>>> (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may >>>>> use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the >>>>> movement of information within and across borders, including for >>>>> intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to >>>>> information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable >>>>> form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member >>>>> significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to >>>>> consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. >>>>> >>>>> (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures >>>>> as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, >>>>> subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner >>>>> which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination >>>>> or a disguised restriction on trade in services. >>>>> >>>>> (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and >>>>> use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than >>>>> as necessary: >>>>> >>>>> (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public >>>>> telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their >>>>> ability to make their networks or services available to the public >>>>> generally; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications >>>>> transport networks or services; or >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply >>>>> services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), >>>>> conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport >>>>> networks and services may include: >>>>> >>>>> (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including >>>>> interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such >>>>> services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph >>>>> 7(a); >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the >>>>> network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such >>>>> equipment to such networks; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits >>>>> with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another >>>>> service supplier; or >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (vi) notification, registration and licensing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing >>>>> country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place >>>>> reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications >>>>> transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic >>>>> telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its >>>>> participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such >>>>> conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels >>>>> on 2 March 2015: >>>>> >>>>> (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic >>>>> communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby >>>>> connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective >>>>> of the network technology and terminal equipment used; >>>>> >>>>> (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an >>>>> undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly >>>>> available electronic communications services. >>>>> >>>>> What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package >>>>> change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards. >>>>> >>>>> //Erik >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter >>>>> [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 >>>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> For completion, the European Union has defined "information society >>>>> services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, >>>>> that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a >>>>> distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a >>>>> recipient of services." >>>>> >>>>> See >>>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This should be the amended act: >>>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the >>>>> network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may >>>>> be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should >>>>> be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy >>>>> obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public >>>>> authorities were that to be the case. >>>>> >>>>> best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Amelia >>>>> >>>>> On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Seth and others, >>>>> >>>>> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally >>>>> designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be >>>>> out-of-date the moment they were made. >>>>> >>>>> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take >>>>> place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. >>>>> >>>>> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely >>>>> recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found >>>>> here: >>>>> http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent >>>>> >>>>> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your >>>>> best source, see here: >>>>> https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm >>>>> >>>>> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood >>>>> the tests of time quite well. >>>>> >>>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re >>>>> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the >>>>> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. >>>>> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because >>>>> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: >>>>> http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in >>>>> particular: >>>>> >>>>> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier >>>>> services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, >>>>> images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and >>>>> television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile >>>>> services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and >>>>> support services. It does not include the value of the information >>>>> transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet >>>>> backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access >>>>> to the Internet. >>>>> >>>>> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer >>>>> services (hardware and software related services and data processing >>>>> services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and >>>>> feature articles to the media), and other information provision services >>>>> (database services and web search portals) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson >>>>> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 >>>>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>>>> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>>> >>>>> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs >>>>> telecommunication service? >>>>> >>>>> I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two >>>>> categories. >>>>> >>>>> Not here: >>>>> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm >>>>> >>>>> Or here (telecom, but not info service): >>>>> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Seth >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you >>>>> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider >>>>> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Marilia, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish >>>>> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV >>>>> document is more than welcome. >>>>> >>>>> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it >>>>> is not clear the difference between "information services" and >>>>> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that >>>>> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Eduardo >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in >>>>> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that >>>>> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN >>>>> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate >>>>> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights >>>>> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). >>>>> >>>>> The document will be updated as more information is made available. >>>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF >>>>> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> CTS/FGV >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Marília Maciel >>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>>>> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >>>>> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>>> >>>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >>>>> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >>>>> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Sat Mar 7 09:13:28 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:13:28 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules In-Reply-To: <40F43B73-622D-431B-A486-5BAB5DF8890C@consensus.pro> References: <464A9592-C3C0-46EB-996E-04D34FB57AAF@consensus.pro> <54F786E9.7010106@piratpartiet.se> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577F5C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> <40F43B73-622D-431B-A486-5BAB5DF8890C@consensus.pro> Message-ID: You can take a situation as it currently stands and engage all the trade treaty negotiators on the basis of "technology neutrality" -- because, as you say, otherwise you'll be obsolete as soon as you enact the policy instrument -- and it doesn't really mean anything other than "talking about how it's supposed to work is going to cause trouble." The way all the performance measures categories and industry classifications underlying the WTO stuff are set up to reflect the vertically integrated structure of telecom as it exists in the US (now simulated vertical integration through a very bizarre implementation of Title II) is a good example of how this way of working that the trade treaty folks have is just not helpful -- unless we get past the concern of disrupting all that "harmonization" and actually talk about how it's supposed to work. Seth On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Seth, > > I'm not honestly sure what your response means, to be candid, other than simply saying that you think that technology neutrality is something you add after you've settled on what it is that you want to do with the specific policy in question. > > I have to say I don't agree with your assessment, simply because it is not my experience that this is how policy is developed, nor do I find that the use of technology neutrality in a policy process is a device used exclusively, or even predominately, by the US: again, my experience is this is used by everyone. Moreover, in some policy areas, technology neutrality is the default position that is the starting place for policy development - trade policy being perhaps the most obvious example, as without tecehnology neutrality in trade negotiations all the outcomes would be defunct before the ink was dry. As a consequence, the point you are making in your second paragraph is not one that stands up to practical application in entire areas of policy development. > > Finally, for the above reasons, I don't see the final two paragraphs as true, either; it is my direct personal experience that they do not reflect reality in many areas of policy. > > International policymaking does not start from a place of what is technically desirable or even possible: it starts from what is politically possible, and proceeds from there. I know this is not widely admired by the Internet technical community, and I also understand and agree that this is frustrating and leads to outcomes that aren't well suited to the reality of how things work in some (and perhaps many) cases. But it is the way things are. For myself, I think it is important to be pragmatic and get the best result possible in a given situation based upon its context. > > Regards, Nick > > On 7 Mar 2015, at 02:06, Seth Johnson wrote: > >> Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of >> "technology neutrality." This is, at best, a sort of "last draft" >> principle. That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop >> the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the >> technical ways of things. Then once you understand the principle that >> you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while >> generalizing it to be independent of technology. But when you do so, >> it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is >> often technical in effect. Most often, especially when you hear it >> from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and >> in international discussions, that often comes across as a >> conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would >> want to push the point, huh? >> >> But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle >> manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change. >> And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what >> it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its >> implications are; or about how general the technology is. In any >> case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term >> "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical >> nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much* >> the issue, and you have to get that down. *Before* you just accept >> "let's be technology neutral." And *before* you proceed to a sort of >> "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally >> in order for it not to be about particular technologies. >> >> Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says >> zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its >> technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen. >> >> Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much >> UN-related processes set terms in advance. The implications for this >> so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are >> very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding >> these international processes. >> >> The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they >> were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope." But note: 1) the US did >> not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect* >> the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up. i.e., the US >> said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU >> had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" -- >> but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed >> to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been >> doing so. 2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to >> the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really >> all it does is assure that things stayed the same. >> >> Similar things happen in many of these arenas. >> >> Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and >> information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the >> notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy -- >> beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and >> that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the >> principle is. >> >> So don't take it too seriously. You still have to do the policy >> development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that. >> I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft" >> notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy >> development is alive. >> >> >> Seth >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: >>> >>> For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very >>> good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The >>> second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" >>> which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which >>> has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and >>> services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the >>> public. >>> >>> In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications >>> transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public >>> telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport >>> service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the >>> public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, >>> telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time >>> transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points >>> without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's >>> information." >>> >>> As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." >>> >>> The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: >>> "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any >>> electromagnetic means." >>> >>> For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to >>> learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be >>> argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to >>> how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at >>> this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's >>> the term used for WTO member-countries): >>> >>> (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may >>> use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the >>> movement of information within and across borders, including for >>> intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to >>> information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable >>> form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member >>> significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to >>> consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. >>> >>> (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures >>> as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, >>> subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner >>> which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination >>> or a disguised restriction on trade in services. >>> >>> (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and >>> use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than >>> as necessary: >>> >>> (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public >>> telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their >>> ability to make their networks or services available to the public >>> generally; >>> >>> >>> (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications >>> transport networks or services; or >>> >>> >>> (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply >>> services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. >>> >>> >>> (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), >>> conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport >>> networks and services may include: >>> >>> (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; >>> >>> >>> (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including >>> interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; >>> >>> >>> (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such >>> services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph >>> 7(a); >>> >>> >>> (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the >>> network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such >>> equipment to such networks; >>> >>> >>> (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits >>> with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another >>> service supplier; or >>> >>> >>> (vi) notification, registration and licensing. >>> >>> >>> (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing >>> country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place >>> reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications >>> transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic >>> telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its >>> participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such >>> conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik >>> wrote: >>> >>> To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels >>> on 2 March 2015: >>> >>> (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic >>> communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby >>> connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective >>> of the network technology and terminal equipment used; >>> >>> (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an >>> undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly >>> available electronic communications services. >>> >>> What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package >>> change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? >>> >>> Best regards. >>> >>> //Erik >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter >>> [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] >>> Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 >>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> For completion, the European Union has defined "information society >>> services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, >>> that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a >>> distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a >>> recipient of services." >>> >>> See >>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN >>> >>> >>> This should be the amended act: >>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 >>> >>> >>> These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the >>> network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may >>> be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should >>> be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy >>> obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public >>> authorities were that to be the case. >>> >>> best regards, >>> >>> Amelia >>> >>> On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> >>> Dear Seth and others, >>> >>> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally >>> designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be >>> out-of-date the moment they were made. >>> >>> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take >>> place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. >>> >>> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely >>> recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found >>> here: >>> http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent >>> >>> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your >>> best source, see here: >>> https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm >>> >>> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood >>> the tests of time quite well. >>> >>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: >>> >>> That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re >>> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the >>> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. >>> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because >>> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel >>> wrote: >>> >>> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: >>> http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in >>> particular: >>> >>> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier >>> services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, >>> images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and >>> television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile >>> services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and >>> support services. It does not include the value of the information >>> transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet >>> backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access >>> to the Internet. >>> >>> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer >>> services (hardware and software related services and data processing >>> services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and >>> feature articles to the media), and other information provision services >>> (database services and web search portals) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson >>> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 >>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>> >>> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs >>> telecommunication service? >>> >>> I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two >>> categories. >>> >>> Not here: >>> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm >>> >>> Or here (telecom, but not info service): >>> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en >>> >>> >>> Seth >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >>> wrote: >>> >>> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you >>> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider >>> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. >>> >>> >>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>> >>> Dear Marilia, >>> >>> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish >>> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV >>> document is more than welcome. >>> >>> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it >>> is not clear the difference between "information services" and >>> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that >>> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Eduardo >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in >>> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that >>> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN >>> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate >>> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights >>> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). >>> >>> The document will be updated as more information is made available. >>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF >>> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> CTS/FGV >>> >>> -- >>> Marília Maciel >>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >>> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >>> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >>> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Mar 7 10:11:00 2015 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:11:00 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> +1 Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different things. Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get lost by (mis-)using it strategically. Jeanette (...) I > have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the > concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the > examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic > Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It > would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of > democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia > first before forcing it into international documents. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter : > >> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather >> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein >> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> >> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >> wrote: >>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >>> deepen their understanding. >>> >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >> >> Dear Mr. Benedek, >> >> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities >> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >> included." >> >> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only >> partially, included. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Norbert Klein >> Cambodia >> >> >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Mar 3 08:08:52 2015 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:08:52 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Oral statement - UN Human Rights Council re: SR on the right to privacy In-Reply-To: <54F4F2D4.5020606@apc.org> References: <54F4F2D4.5020606@apc.org> Message-ID: <54F5B264.8090904@cafonso.ca> Hi Deborah, I've just sent Tomaso Nupef's support. We have posted a version in Brazilian Portuguese in our institutional portal as well as our online magazine RETS, with a call for BR NGOs to support it: http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/119 frt rgds --c.a. On 03/02/2015 08:31 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > As you might be aware, there is an ongoing effort to establish a UN > Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy. The Human Rights Council is > expected to consider this at its current session, which began today in > Geneva. > > If established, the rapporteur will provide much-needed leadership and > guidance on developing an understanding of the scope and content on the > right to privacy, as well as strengthening the monitoring of states and > companies' compliance with their responsibility to respect and protect > the right to privacy in their laws, policies and practices. > > We have been working with Privacy International and others to develop an > oral statement (attached), which will be delivered during the session of > the Council. We are inviting NGOs to join this statement in order to > send a strong signal of support for the creation of a Special Rapporteur > on the right to privacy. > > Given the previous interest on Best Bits in privacy and surveillance > issues, I wanted to share this statement here to give you the > opportunity to sign on. If your organisation is interested to join it, > please email Tomaso Falchetta (at tomasof at privacyinternational.org > ) and Shawna Finnegan > (shawna at apc.org) by *no later than Wednesday, 11 March*. > > *Please note that this statement is not for publication before 13 March. * > > All the best, > Deborah > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sat Mar 7 10:39:50 2015 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 16:39:50 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <74735C04-3251-43A7-BC2B-95CDE58B9BB8@theglobaljournal.net> -1 on your comment Jeanette "Words" are part of what makes the ground for getting the people together whether by raw consensus, flawed consensus, twisted consensus, even by democratic consent (Oh my Godness what did I write here? UNESCO goes into banishing the word "democratic" thanks to US disgusting maneuvers, money, and their little doggies. Democracy is a much more solid ground, when it comes to "governance" including in the field of public digital policies, much more than MSXXXism which is basically the best friend of vested US interests, and simply the opposite of democratic principles. We all know that. Refusing to acknowledge that the US government fights any bit of ground to refuse a change in its status-quo domination of Internet is a shame. More of a shame is that people that declare themselves defender of human rights, still prefer to put democracy aside because it might be misused according to their knowledge. Using such empty arguments, like all of what we have seen so far, is simply not acceptable. MSXXXism is not just constantly misused. It is undefined, though it is a mean of protection of the current asymmetry. This UNESCO meeting is a milestone for any true civil society activist, as the betrayal of everything we are supposed to fight for. Your reaction, and the attitude of people like Jeremy during the UNESCO meeting are just a shame. In front of history, you'll have to justify it with much stronger arguments. In the meantime, we see a lot of misgivings from the US regarding surveillance, TLDs... The US show goes on with a great complicity of some so-called CS. JC Le 7 mars 2015 à 16:11, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > +1 > > Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different things. > > Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get lost by (mis-)using it strategically. > > Jeanette > > > (...) > > I >> have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the >> concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the >> examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic >> Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It >> would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of >> democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia >> first before forcing it into international documents. >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> >> >> >> >> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter : >> >>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather >>> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein >>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>> >>> >>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>> wrote: >>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >>>> deepen their understanding. >>>> >>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>>> >>> >>> Dear Mr. Benedek, >>> >>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities >>> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >>> included." >>> >>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only >>> partially, included. >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> Norbert Klein >>> Cambodia >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Sat Mar 7 10:40:32 2015 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:40:32 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578D35@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Can it really mean so many different things? Which meanings are you using at your research centre? http://www.wzb.eu/en/search/apachesolr_search/democracy Please also describe the normative substance of the term democracy (or provide a link). Then let's make sure it is not lost! //Erik -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: 07 March 2015 16:11 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" +1 Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different things. Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get lost by (mis-)using it strategically. Jeanette (...) I > have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the > concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the > examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic > Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It > would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of > democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia > first before forcing it into international documents. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter : > >> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather >> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein >> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> >> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >> wrote: >>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >>> deepen their understanding. >>> >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >> >> Dear Mr. Benedek, >> >> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities >> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >> included." >> >> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only >> partially, included. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Norbert Klein >> Cambodia >> >> >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Mar 7 11:31:27 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 08:31:27 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <02a001d058f4$29cbc8f0$7d635ad0$@gmail.com> Anyone who thinks this is simply about word games has not been present in Internet Governance discussions over the last ten years where there has been a very concerted intention to ensure that deliberately ill-defined but elite based multistakeholder decision processes become the required mode in the Internet policy area. What is interesting in this instance is that for once the process and its overall objective has been made clear i.e. to suppress democracy in favour of MSism. An additional matter of interest that has become visible is the range of unholy alliances that have been struck between those self-serving governmental and corporate forces promoting MSism and various elements of so-called "civil society". As an aside, if anyone is still wondering how MS decision processes might actually operate in practice one need only reflect on the processes of decision making that went into this purportedly multistakeholder Output Document -- the highly questionable and completely non-transparent selection of the editorial committee (from a small circle of the Internet Governance elite), where potentially critical but equally qualified participants were excluded, where dissenting voices and positions were suppressed, with a complete lack of accountability to presumed constituencies or "stakeholder" groups, and where the outcome was presented completely falsely as a "consensus" document and output of the associated meeting. Shame on UNESCO and all those involved for hosting and countenancing such a farce. And be very very afraid when these kinds of multistakeholder processes become the required norm in a much broader range of global Internet (and other) decision processes as is the clear intention of those controlling and directing these efforts. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: March 7, 2015 7:11 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" +1 Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different things. Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get lost by (mis-)using it strategically. Jeanette (...) I > have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that > the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take > the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the > Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic > of Korea. It would be good to work for a consensus on the > understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet > among civil society and academia first before forcing it into international documents. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter : > >> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but >> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert >> Klein >> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing >> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> >> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang >> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >> wrote: >>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary >>> and >>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into >>> the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work >>> in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only >>> partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts were >>> elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any significant way >>> in order to deepen their understanding. >>> >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >> >> Dear Mr. Benedek, >> >> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only >> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only >> partly included." >> >> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, >> could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or >> only partially, included. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Norbert Klein >> Cambodia >> >> >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Mar 7 12:01:10 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:01:10 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been advocating for a long time. Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr. Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient comfort to "force" it into international documents. The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in practice. M -----Original Message----- From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still needs to be developed. Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at all. Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into international documents. Wolfgang Benedek Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < gurstein at gmail.com>: >And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but >rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". > >M > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert >Klein >Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > >On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang >( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >wrote: >> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >> deepen their understanding. >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> > >Dear Mr. Benedek, > >thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only >formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only >partly included." > >I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only >partially, included. > >Thanks in advance, > >Norbert Klein >Cambodia > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Mar 7 12:19:55 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:19:55 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <14bf51f6778.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> <02a001d058f4$29cbc8f0$7d635ad0$@gmail.com> <14bf51f6778.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <02fc01d058fa$eee46c40$ccad44c0$@gmail.com> So, advocating for democracy and social justice is "scor(ing) petty political points" and its advocates are by definition to be excluded from multistakeholder consensus processes. Yes, I can see why there is a clear desire to suppress all notions and expressions of democracy as these would tend to slow down the massive drive for control by those folks who are feverishly working to build the brave new multistakeholder world of the future. M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: March 7, 2015 8:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; 'best Bits'; Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" Oh that's not elite based at all. It simply ensures that only people prepared to actually work at something rather than score petty political points get to have a say in the process On March 7, 2015 10:01:54 PM "Michael Gurstein" wrote: > Anyone who thinks this is simply about word games has not been present > in Internet Governance discussions over the last ten years where there > has been a very concerted intention to ensure that deliberately > ill-defined but elite based multistakeholder decision processes become > the required mode in the Internet policy area. > > What is interesting in this instance is that for once the process and > its overall objective has been made clear i.e. to suppress democracy > in favour of MSism. An additional matter of interest that has become > visible is the range of unholy alliances that have been struck between > those self-serving governmental and corporate forces promoting MSism > and various elements of so-called "civil society". > > As an aside, if anyone is still wondering how MS decision processes > might actually operate in practice one need only reflect on the > processes of decision making that went into this purportedly > multistakeholder Output Document -- the highly questionable and > completely non-transparent selection of the editorial committee (from > a small circle of the Internet Governance elite), where potentially > critical but equally qualified participants were excluded, where > dissenting voices and positions were suppressed, with a complete lack > of accountability to presumed constituencies or "stakeholder" groups, > and where the outcome was presented completely falsely as a > "consensus" document and output of the associated meeting. > > Shame on UNESCO and all those involved for hosting and countenancing > such a farce. > > And be very very afraid when these kinds of multistakeholder processes > become the required norm in a much broader range of global Internet > (and > other) decision processes as is the clear intention of those > controlling and directing these efforts. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeanette > Hofmann > Sent: March 7, 2015 7:11 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > +1 > > Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language > games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much > waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different things. > > Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get > lost by (mis-)using it strategically. > > Jeanette > > > (...) > > I > > have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware > > that the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in > > history, take the examples of the former German Democratic > > Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the > > Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for a > > consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context > > of the internet among civil society and academia first before > > forcing it into > international documents. > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > > > > > > Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter : > > > >> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply > >> a matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but > >> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to > >> promote "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". > >> > >> M > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert > >> Klein > >> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing > >> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > >> > >> > >> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang > >> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > >> wrote: > >>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting > >>> the > >>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important > >>> to put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was > >>> to give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on > >>> the future priorities in this field. This was done in several > >>> plenary and > >>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. > >>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into > >>> the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all > >>> work in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or > >>> only partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts > >>> were elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any > >>> significant way in order to deepen their understanding. > >>> > >>> Wolfgang Benedek > >>> > >> > >> Dear Mr. Benedek, > >> > >> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only > >> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or > >> only partly included." > >> > >> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar > >> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would > >> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, > >> could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or > >> only partially, included. > >> > >> Thanks in advance, > >> > >> Norbert Klein > >> Cambodia > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ---------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > From nashton at consensus.pro Sat Mar 7 12:37:22 2015 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 18:37:22 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules In-Reply-To: References: <464A9592-C3C0-46EB-996E-04D34FB57AAF@consensus.pro> <54F786E9.7010106@piratpartiet.se> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577F5C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> <40F43B73-622D-431B-A486-5BAB5DF8890C@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <4B7626E5-08D0-4587-BBF9-D20B29523DF8@consensus.pro> Dear Seth, Again, I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Suggesting that trade commitments don't "really mean anything" is simply false: they're enforceable through the dispute settlement understanding aside from anything else. Your idea of the classifications being all based on US ideas, again, this is simply not the case and your interpretation is not one that would be familiar to those who actually negotiated these deals, nor to those who live with them today. You can take any view you like of trade policy and its effects and the desirability of them but that's a different thing than making unilateral statements about how it works. If you want to have a side conversation about this I'm amenable but I think we're straying pretty far from matters Internet, and the further it goes the less interesting it will probably be for most other subscribers. On 7 Mar 2015, at 15:13, Seth Johnson wrote: > You can take a situation as it currently stands and engage all the > trade treaty negotiators on the basis of "technology neutrality" -- > because, as you say, otherwise you'll be obsolete as soon as you enact > the policy instrument -- and it doesn't really mean anything other > than "talking about how it's supposed to work is going to cause > trouble." > > The way all the performance measures categories and industry > classifications underlying the WTO stuff are set up to reflect the > vertically integrated structure of telecom as it exists in the US (now > simulated vertical integration through a very bizarre implementation > of Title II) is a good example of how this way of working that the > trade treaty folks have is just not helpful -- unless we get past the > concern of disrupting all that "harmonization" and actually talk about > how it's supposed to work. > > > Seth > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> Dear Seth, >> >> I'm not honestly sure what your response means, to be candid, other than simply saying that you think that technology neutrality is something you add after you've settled on what it is that you want to do with the specific policy in question. >> >> I have to say I don't agree with your assessment, simply because it is not my experience that this is how policy is developed, nor do I find that the use of technology neutrality in a policy process is a device used exclusively, or even predominately, by the US: again, my experience is this is used by everyone. Moreover, in some policy areas, technology neutrality is the default position that is the starting place for policy development - trade policy being perhaps the most obvious example, as without tecehnology neutrality in trade negotiations all the outcomes would be defunct before the ink was dry. As a consequence, the point you are making in your second paragraph is not one that stands up to practical application in entire areas of policy development. >> >> Finally, for the above reasons, I don't see the final two paragraphs as true, either; it is my direct personal experience that they do not reflect reality in many areas of policy. >> >> International policymaking does not start from a place of what is technically desirable or even possible: it starts from what is politically possible, and proceeds from there. I know this is not widely admired by the Internet technical community, and I also understand and agree that this is frustrating and leads to outcomes that aren't well suited to the reality of how things work in some (and perhaps many) cases. But it is the way things are. For myself, I think it is important to be pragmatic and get the best result possible in a given situation based upon its context. >> >> Regards, Nick >> >> On 7 Mar 2015, at 02:06, Seth Johnson wrote: >> >>> Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of >>> "technology neutrality." This is, at best, a sort of "last draft" >>> principle. That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop >>> the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the >>> technical ways of things. Then once you understand the principle that >>> you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while >>> generalizing it to be independent of technology. But when you do so, >>> it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is >>> often technical in effect. Most often, especially when you hear it >>> from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and >>> in international discussions, that often comes across as a >>> conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would >>> want to push the point, huh? >>> >>> But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle >>> manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change. >>> And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what >>> it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its >>> implications are; or about how general the technology is. In any >>> case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term >>> "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical >>> nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much* >>> the issue, and you have to get that down. *Before* you just accept >>> "let's be technology neutral." And *before* you proceed to a sort of >>> "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally >>> in order for it not to be about particular technologies. >>> >>> Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says >>> zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its >>> technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen. >>> >>> Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much >>> UN-related processes set terms in advance. The implications for this >>> so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are >>> very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding >>> these international processes. >>> >>> The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they >>> were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope." But note: 1) the US did >>> not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect* >>> the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up. i.e., the US >>> said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU >>> had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" -- >>> but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed >>> to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been >>> doing so. 2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to >>> the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really >>> all it does is assure that things stayed the same. >>> >>> Similar things happen in many of these arenas. >>> >>> Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and >>> information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the >>> notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy -- >>> beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and >>> that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the >>> principle is. >>> >>> So don't take it too seriously. You still have to do the policy >>> development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that. >>> I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft" >>> notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy >>> development is alive. >>> >>> >>> Seth >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: >>>> >>>> For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very >>>> good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The >>>> second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" >>>> which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which >>>> has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and >>>> services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the >>>> public. >>>> >>>> In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications >>>> transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public >>>> telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport >>>> service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the >>>> public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, >>>> telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time >>>> transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points >>>> without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's >>>> information." >>>> >>>> As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." >>>> >>>> The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: >>>> "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any >>>> electromagnetic means." >>>> >>>> For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to >>>> learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be >>>> argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to >>>> how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at >>>> this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's >>>> the term used for WTO member-countries): >>>> >>>> (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may >>>> use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the >>>> movement of information within and across borders, including for >>>> intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to >>>> information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable >>>> form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member >>>> significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to >>>> consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. >>>> >>>> (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures >>>> as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, >>>> subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner >>>> which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination >>>> or a disguised restriction on trade in services. >>>> >>>> (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and >>>> use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than >>>> as necessary: >>>> >>>> (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public >>>> telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their >>>> ability to make their networks or services available to the public >>>> generally; >>>> >>>> >>>> (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications >>>> transport networks or services; or >>>> >>>> >>>> (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply >>>> services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. >>>> >>>> >>>> (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), >>>> conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport >>>> networks and services may include: >>>> >>>> (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; >>>> >>>> >>>> (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including >>>> interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; >>>> >>>> >>>> (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such >>>> services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph >>>> 7(a); >>>> >>>> >>>> (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the >>>> network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such >>>> equipment to such networks; >>>> >>>> >>>> (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits >>>> with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another >>>> service supplier; or >>>> >>>> >>>> (vi) notification, registration and licensing. >>>> >>>> >>>> (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing >>>> country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place >>>> reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications >>>> transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic >>>> telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its >>>> participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such >>>> conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels >>>> on 2 March 2015: >>>> >>>> (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic >>>> communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby >>>> connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective >>>> of the network technology and terminal equipment used; >>>> >>>> (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an >>>> undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly >>>> available electronic communications services. >>>> >>>> What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package >>>> change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? >>>> >>>> Best regards. >>>> >>>> //Erik >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter >>>> [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] >>>> Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 >>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> For completion, the European Union has defined "information society >>>> services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, >>>> that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a >>>> distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a >>>> recipient of services." >>>> >>>> See >>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN >>>> >>>> >>>> This should be the amended act: >>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 >>>> >>>> >>>> These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the >>>> network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may >>>> be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should >>>> be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy >>>> obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public >>>> authorities were that to be the case. >>>> >>>> best regards, >>>> >>>> Amelia >>>> >>>> On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Seth and others, >>>> >>>> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally >>>> designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be >>>> out-of-date the moment they were made. >>>> >>>> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take >>>> place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. >>>> >>>> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely >>>> recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found >>>> here: >>>> http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent >>>> >>>> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your >>>> best source, see here: >>>> https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm >>>> >>>> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood >>>> the tests of time quite well. >>>> >>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re >>>> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the >>>> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. >>>> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because >>>> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: >>>> http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in >>>> particular: >>>> >>>> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier >>>> services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, >>>> images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and >>>> television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile >>>> services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and >>>> support services. It does not include the value of the information >>>> transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet >>>> backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access >>>> to the Internet. >>>> >>>> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer >>>> services (hardware and software related services and data processing >>>> services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and >>>> feature articles to the media), and other information provision services >>>> (database services and web search portals) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson >>>> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 >>>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>>> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>> >>>> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs >>>> telecommunication service? >>>> >>>> I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two >>>> categories. >>>> >>>> Not here: >>>> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm >>>> >>>> Or here (telecom, but not info service): >>>> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en >>>> >>>> >>>> Seth >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you >>>> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider >>>> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Marilia, >>>> >>>> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish >>>> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV >>>> document is more than welcome. >>>> >>>> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it >>>> is not clear the difference between "information services" and >>>> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that >>>> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Eduardo >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in >>>> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that >>>> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN >>>> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate >>>> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights >>>> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). >>>> >>>> The document will be updated as more information is made available. >>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF >>>> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> CTS/FGV >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Marília Maciel >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>>> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >>>> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >>>> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >>>> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as 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 -------------- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Mar 7 15:08:56 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 12:08:56 -0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <038501d05912$8b792480$a26b6d80$@gmail.com> Wolfgang, The issues that you mention of interest to CS are of course important and should be addressed by CS in all cases, but there is also the overall necessity to ensure that the broad framework of decision making and the normative structures which underlie this are supportive of the general good (including of course, civil society). The problem is that in the MS model there is no one to protect the public interest... as was quite evident in this UNESCO instance where the entire process seems to have been captured by MSists from the very beginning (surely a framing in terms of democratic values and social justice is a minimum expectation). As I think is quite evident in this particular instance as with others where a MS approach is allowed to frame the discussion, it is not clear at all that the general good is being or will be pursued. M -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: March 7, 2015 9:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; best Bits Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" This discussion is bizarr. Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided. Wolfgang BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues". The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been advocating for a long time. Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr. Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient comfort to "force" it into international documents. The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in practice. M -----Original Message----- From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still needs to be developed. Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at all. Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into international documents. Wolfgang Benedek Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < gurstein at gmail.com>: >And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but >rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". > >M > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert >Klein >Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >To: >governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > >On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang >( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >wrote: >> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >> deepen their understanding. >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> > >Dear Mr. Benedek, > >thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only >formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only >partly included." > >I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only >partially, included. > >Thanks in advance, > >Norbert Klein >Cambodia > > > > From lorena at collaboratory.de Sat Mar 7 16:16:55 2015 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Collaboratory) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:16:55 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <54FB1504.5050802@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20F8D742-0ACA-4B24-B7F2-1C54563DC4CD@collaboratory.de> +1 Enviado desde mi iPhone > El 7/3/2015, a las 16:11, Jeanette Hofmann escribió: > > +1 > > Isn't it amazing that civil society seems to have adopted the language games we observed governments playing over years during WSIS? So much waste of time and energy spent on terms that can mean so many different things. > > Paradoxically, the normative substance of the term democracy may get lost by (mis-)using it strategically. > > Jeanette > > > (...) > > I >> have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the >> concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the >> examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic >> Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It >> would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of >> democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia >> first before forcing it into international documents. >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> >> >> >> >> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter : >> >>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather >>> that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein >>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>> >>> >>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>> wrote: >>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >>>> deepen their understanding. >>>> >>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >>> Dear Mr. Benedek, >>> >>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities >>> like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >>> included." >>> >>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only >>> partially, included. >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> Norbert Klein >>> Cambodia >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Sat Mar 7 16:40:38 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 16:40:38 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules In-Reply-To: <4B7626E5-08D0-4587-BBF9-D20B29523DF8@consensus.pro> References: <464A9592-C3C0-46EB-996E-04D34FB57AAF@consensus.pro> <54F786E9.7010106@piratpartiet.se> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577F5C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> <40F43B73-622D-431B-A486-5BAB5DF8890C@consensus.pro> <4B7626E5-08D0-4587-BBF9-D20B29523DF8@consensus.pro> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Seth, > > Again, I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Suggesting that trade commitments don't "really mean anything" LOL! I surely didn't say that. So long as we are able to do the policy discussion instead of the harmonization discussion, not a problem. > is simply false: they're enforceable through the dispute settlement understanding aside from anything else. Your idea of the classifications being all based on US ideas, again, this is simply not the case and your interpretation is not one that would be familiar to those who actually negotiated these deals, nor to those who live with them today. In this case I can only state that I surely did not say that they were based on US ideas. If the fact that they reflect the vertically integrated model that the US promotes suggests that they were actually based on the US, I won't argue with that. Most folks seem inclined to resist letting the US get away with that, so that conclusion only helps. But no: I didn't say that. > > You can take any view you like of trade policy and its effects and the desirability of them but that's a different thing than making unilateral statements about how it works. If you want to have a side conversation about this I'm amenable Absolutely not. This discussion should remain out front. That above-referenced policy discussion needs to clear out a space for a proper discussion just about every time this technology neutrality principle gets trotted out. > but I think we're straying pretty far from matters Internet Quite to the contrary. We're addressing the foundation of the Internet. You just don't recognize it as yet. :-) > and the further it goes the less interesting it will probably be for most other subscribers. You're the one candidly questioning it. I explained the need to not be diverted by "technology neutrality" from actually examining the technical aspects of policy. You can either act like "technology neutrality" is sort of immanent to the policy itself, as you do, or you can say you get "technology neutrality" after you actually engage in the technical details of the policy and get it right. For trade treaty negotiators, that distinction might seem negligible or a wrong characterization of what they're doing, but for anyone who wants to deal with these issues properly, it's crucial. Especially since we have to deal with all the trade treaty harmonization activity and try to find a way to correct it despite the considerable force it brings into the discussion. Seth > On 7 Mar 2015, at 15:13, Seth Johnson wrote: > >> You can take a situation as it currently stands and engage all the >> trade treaty negotiators on the basis of "technology neutrality" -- >> because, as you say, otherwise you'll be obsolete as soon as you enact >> the policy instrument -- and it doesn't really mean anything other >> than "talking about how it's supposed to work is going to cause >> trouble." >> >> The way all the performance measures categories and industry >> classifications underlying the WTO stuff are set up to reflect the >> vertically integrated structure of telecom as it exists in the US (now >> simulated vertical integration through a very bizarre implementation >> of Title II) is a good example of how this way of working that the >> trade treaty folks have is just not helpful -- unless we get past the >> concern of disrupting all that "harmonization" and actually talk about >> how it's supposed to work. >> >> >> Seth >> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> Dear Seth, >>> >>> I'm not honestly sure what your response means, to be candid, other than simply saying that you think that technology neutrality is something you add after you've settled on what it is that you want to do with the specific policy in question. >>> >>> I have to say I don't agree with your assessment, simply because it is not my experience that this is how policy is developed, nor do I find that the use of technology neutrality in a policy process is a device used exclusively, or even predominately, by the US: again, my experience is this is used by everyone. Moreover, in some policy areas, technology neutrality is the default position that is the starting place for policy development - trade policy being perhaps the most obvious example, as without tecehnology neutrality in trade negotiations all the outcomes would be defunct before the ink was dry. As a consequence, the point you are making in your second paragraph is not one that stands up to practical application in entire areas of policy development. >>> >>> Finally, for the above reasons, I don't see the final two paragraphs as true, either; it is my direct personal experience that they do not reflect reality in many areas of policy. >>> >>> International policymaking does not start from a place of what is technically desirable or even possible: it starts from what is politically possible, and proceeds from there. I know this is not widely admired by the Internet technical community, and I also understand and agree that this is frustrating and leads to outcomes that aren't well suited to the reality of how things work in some (and perhaps many) cases. But it is the way things are. For myself, I think it is important to be pragmatic and get the best result possible in a given situation based upon its context. >>> >>> Regards, Nick >>> >>> On 7 Mar 2015, at 02:06, Seth Johnson wrote: >>> >>>> Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of >>>> "technology neutrality." This is, at best, a sort of "last draft" >>>> principle. That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop >>>> the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the >>>> technical ways of things. Then once you understand the principle that >>>> you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while >>>> generalizing it to be independent of technology. But when you do so, >>>> it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is >>>> often technical in effect. Most often, especially when you hear it >>>> from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and >>>> in international discussions, that often comes across as a >>>> conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would >>>> want to push the point, huh? >>>> >>>> But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle >>>> manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change. >>>> And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what >>>> it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its >>>> implications are; or about how general the technology is. In any >>>> case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term >>>> "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical >>>> nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much* >>>> the issue, and you have to get that down. *Before* you just accept >>>> "let's be technology neutral." And *before* you proceed to a sort of >>>> "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally >>>> in order for it not to be about particular technologies. >>>> >>>> Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says >>>> zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its >>>> technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen. >>>> >>>> Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much >>>> UN-related processes set terms in advance. The implications for this >>>> so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are >>>> very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding >>>> these international processes. >>>> >>>> The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they >>>> were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope." But note: 1) the US did >>>> not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect* >>>> the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up. i.e., the US >>>> said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU >>>> had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" -- >>>> but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed >>>> to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been >>>> doing so. 2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to >>>> the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really >>>> all it does is assure that things stayed the same. >>>> >>>> Similar things happen in many of these arenas. >>>> >>>> Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and >>>> information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the >>>> notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy -- >>>> beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and >>>> that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the >>>> principle is. >>>> >>>> So don't take it too seriously. You still have to do the policy >>>> development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that. >>>> I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft" >>>> notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy >>>> development is alive. >>>> >>>> >>>> Seth >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: >>>>> >>>>> For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very >>>>> good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The >>>>> second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" >>>>> which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which >>>>> has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and >>>>> services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the >>>>> public. >>>>> >>>>> In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications >>>>> transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public >>>>> telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport >>>>> service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the >>>>> public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, >>>>> telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time >>>>> transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points >>>>> without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's >>>>> information." >>>>> >>>>> As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." >>>>> >>>>> The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: >>>>> "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any >>>>> electromagnetic means." >>>>> >>>>> For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to >>>>> learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be >>>>> argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to >>>>> how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at >>>>> this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's >>>>> the term used for WTO member-countries): >>>>> >>>>> (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may >>>>> use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the >>>>> movement of information within and across borders, including for >>>>> intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to >>>>> information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable >>>>> form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member >>>>> significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to >>>>> consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. >>>>> >>>>> (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures >>>>> as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, >>>>> subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner >>>>> which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination >>>>> or a disguised restriction on trade in services. >>>>> >>>>> (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and >>>>> use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than >>>>> as necessary: >>>>> >>>>> (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public >>>>> telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their >>>>> ability to make their networks or services available to the public >>>>> generally; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications >>>>> transport networks or services; or >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply >>>>> services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), >>>>> conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport >>>>> networks and services may include: >>>>> >>>>> (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including >>>>> interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such >>>>> services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph >>>>> 7(a); >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the >>>>> network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such >>>>> equipment to such networks; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits >>>>> with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another >>>>> service supplier; or >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (vi) notification, registration and licensing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing >>>>> country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place >>>>> reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications >>>>> transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic >>>>> telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its >>>>> participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such >>>>> conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels >>>>> on 2 March 2015: >>>>> >>>>> (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic >>>>> communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby >>>>> connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective >>>>> of the network technology and terminal equipment used; >>>>> >>>>> (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an >>>>> undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly >>>>> available electronic communications services. >>>>> >>>>> What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package >>>>> change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards. >>>>> >>>>> //Erik >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter >>>>> [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 >>>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> For completion, the European Union has defined "information society >>>>> services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, >>>>> that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a >>>>> distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a >>>>> recipient of services." >>>>> >>>>> See >>>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This should be the amended act: >>>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the >>>>> network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may >>>>> be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should >>>>> be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy >>>>> obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public >>>>> authorities were that to be the case. >>>>> >>>>> best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Amelia >>>>> >>>>> On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Seth and others, >>>>> >>>>> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally >>>>> designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be >>>>> out-of-date the moment they were made. >>>>> >>>>> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take >>>>> place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. >>>>> >>>>> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely >>>>> recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found >>>>> here: >>>>> http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent >>>>> >>>>> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your >>>>> best source, see here: >>>>> https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm >>>>> >>>>> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood >>>>> the tests of time quite well. >>>>> >>>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re >>>>> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the >>>>> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. >>>>> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because >>>>> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: >>>>> http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in >>>>> particular: >>>>> >>>>> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier >>>>> services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, >>>>> images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and >>>>> television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile >>>>> services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and >>>>> support services. It does not include the value of the information >>>>> transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet >>>>> backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access >>>>> to the Internet. >>>>> >>>>> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer >>>>> services (hardware and software related services and data processing >>>>> services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and >>>>> feature articles to the media), and other information provision services >>>>> (database services and web search portals) >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson >>>>> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 >>>>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>>>> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>>> >>>>> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs >>>>> telecommunication service? >>>>> >>>>> I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two >>>>> categories. >>>>> >>>>> Not here: >>>>> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm >>>>> >>>>> Or here (telecom, but not info service): >>>>> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Seth >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you >>>>> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider >>>>> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Marilia, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish >>>>> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV >>>>> document is more than welcome. >>>>> >>>>> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it >>>>> is not clear the difference between "information services" and >>>>> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that >>>>> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Eduardo >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in >>>>> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that >>>>> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN >>>>> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate >>>>> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights >>>>> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). >>>>> >>>>> The document will be updated as more information is made available. >>>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF >>>>> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> CTS/FGV >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Marília Maciel >>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>>>> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >>>>> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>>> >>>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >>>>> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >>>>> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Sat Mar 7 16:49:27 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 16:49:27 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules In-Reply-To: References: <464A9592-C3C0-46EB-996E-04D34FB57AAF@consensus.pro> <54F786E9.7010106@piratpartiet.se> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577F5C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <3F2FC1B8-8FB7-4F30-8546-EAADE5AB9F80@consensus.pro> <40F43B73-622D-431B-A486-5BAB5DF8890C@consensus.pro> <4B7626E5-08D0-4587-BBF9-D20B29523DF8@consensus.pro> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Seth Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> Dear Seth, >> >> Again, I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Suggesting that trade commitments don't "really mean anything" > > > LOL! I surely didn't say that. > > So long as we are able to do the policy discussion instead of the > harmonization discussion, not a problem. > >> is simply false: they're enforceable through the dispute settlement understanding aside from anything else. Your idea of the classifications being all based on US ideas, again, this is simply not the case and your interpretation is not one that would be familiar to those who actually negotiated these deals, nor to those who live with them today. > > > In this case I can only state that I surely did not say that they were > based on US ideas. If the fact that they reflect the vertically > integrated model that the US promotes suggests that they were actually > based on the US, I won't argue with that. Most folks seem inclined to > resist letting the US get away with that, so that conclusion only > helps. > > But no: I didn't say that. I fully grant that "are set up to reflect" comes close, in a passive voice. All I know is how the categories are defined, the result.: " The way all the performance measures categories and industry classifications underlying the WTO stuff are set up to reflect the vertically integrated structure of telecom as it exists in the US (now simulated vertical integration through a very bizarre implementation of Title II) is a good example of how this way of working that the trade treaty folks have is just not helpful -- unless we get past the concern of disrupting all that "harmonization" and actually talk about how it's supposed to work. " (eom) >> >> You can take any view you like of trade policy and its effects and the desirability of them but that's a different thing than making unilateral statements about how it works. If you want to have a side conversation about this I'm amenable > > > Absolutely not. This discussion should remain out front. That > above-referenced policy discussion needs to clear out a space for a > proper discussion just about every time this technology neutrality > principle gets trotted out. > > >> but I think we're straying pretty far from matters Internet > > > Quite to the contrary. We're addressing the foundation of the > Internet. You just don't recognize it as yet. :-) > > >> and the further it goes the less interesting it will probably be for most other subscribers. > > > You're the one candidly questioning it. I explained the need to not > be diverted by "technology neutrality" from actually examining the > technical aspects of policy. You can either act like "technology > neutrality" is sort of immanent to the policy itself, as you do, or > you can say you get "technology neutrality" after you actually engage > in the technical details of the policy and get it right. For trade > treaty negotiators, that distinction might seem negligible or a wrong > characterization of what they're doing, but for anyone who wants to > deal with these issues properly, it's crucial. Especially since we > have to deal with all the trade treaty harmonization activity and try > to find a way to correct it despite the considerable force it brings > into the discussion. > > > Seth > >> On 7 Mar 2015, at 15:13, Seth Johnson wrote: >> >>> You can take a situation as it currently stands and engage all the >>> trade treaty negotiators on the basis of "technology neutrality" -- >>> because, as you say, otherwise you'll be obsolete as soon as you enact >>> the policy instrument -- and it doesn't really mean anything other >>> than "talking about how it's supposed to work is going to cause >>> trouble." >>> >>> The way all the performance measures categories and industry >>> classifications underlying the WTO stuff are set up to reflect the >>> vertically integrated structure of telecom as it exists in the US (now >>> simulated vertical integration through a very bizarre implementation >>> of Title II) is a good example of how this way of working that the >>> trade treaty folks have is just not helpful -- unless we get past the >>> concern of disrupting all that "harmonization" and actually talk about >>> how it's supposed to work. >>> >>> >>> Seth >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>> Dear Seth, >>>> >>>> I'm not honestly sure what your response means, to be candid, other than simply saying that you think that technology neutrality is something you add after you've settled on what it is that you want to do with the specific policy in question. >>>> >>>> I have to say I don't agree with your assessment, simply because it is not my experience that this is how policy is developed, nor do I find that the use of technology neutrality in a policy process is a device used exclusively, or even predominately, by the US: again, my experience is this is used by everyone. Moreover, in some policy areas, technology neutrality is the default position that is the starting place for policy development - trade policy being perhaps the most obvious example, as without tecehnology neutrality in trade negotiations all the outcomes would be defunct before the ink was dry. As a consequence, the point you are making in your second paragraph is not one that stands up to practical application in entire areas of policy development. >>>> >>>> Finally, for the above reasons, I don't see the final two paragraphs as true, either; it is my direct personal experience that they do not reflect reality in many areas of policy. >>>> >>>> International policymaking does not start from a place of what is technically desirable or even possible: it starts from what is politically possible, and proceeds from there. I know this is not widely admired by the Internet technical community, and I also understand and agree that this is frustrating and leads to outcomes that aren't well suited to the reality of how things work in some (and perhaps many) cases. But it is the way things are. For myself, I think it is important to be pragmatic and get the best result possible in a given situation based upon its context. >>>> >>>> Regards, Nick >>>> >>>> On 7 Mar 2015, at 02:06, Seth Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Keep in mind that Nick makes frequent reference to the notion of >>>>> "technology neutrality." This is, at best, a sort of "last draft" >>>>> principle. That is, it is something that you do *after* you develop >>>>> the policy, and your considerations should very much enter into the >>>>> technical ways of things. Then once you understand the principle that >>>>> you wish to have at play, you may be able to preserve it while >>>>> generalizing it to be independent of technology. But when you do so, >>>>> it should be staed in a way that preserves the principle, which is >>>>> often technical in effect. Most often, especially when you hear it >>>>> from the US, it's just a principle used to say "don't change" -- and >>>>> in international discussions, that often comes across as a >>>>> conservative play to minimize the need to negotiate -- and who would >>>>> want to push the point, huh? >>>>> >>>>> But in the meantime, the question is indeed whether the principle >>>>> manifested in technical way you want things to work, needs to change. >>>>> And that is a question about things like what the technology is (what >>>>> it is doing, stated as abstractly as you please) and what its >>>>> implications are; or about how general the technology is. In any >>>>> case, the complicated implications actually buried in that term >>>>> "Technology neutrality" are very involved, and in fact the technical >>>>> nature of things, the way it's to function, is always *so very much* >>>>> the issue, and you have to get that down. *Before* you just accept >>>>> "let's be technology neutral." And *before* you proceed to a sort of >>>>> "final edit" step of describing the technical way of things generally >>>>> in order for it not to be about particular technologies. >>>>> >>>>> Or one simple way to summarize it is, "technology neutrality" says >>>>> zero about what the nature of policy should be in terms of its >>>>> technical nature, what it's actually trying to set up to happen. >>>>> >>>>> Also one thing people are not generally cognizant of, is how much >>>>> UN-related processes set terms in advance. The implications for this >>>>> so-called "principle" of "technology neutrality" in that light are >>>>> very interesting in terms of how positions are projected regarding >>>>> these international processes. >>>>> >>>>> The US projected a message to the world at large at WCIT, that they >>>>> were resisting "expansions of ITU's scope." But note: 1) the US did >>>>> not actually advocate any changes at WCIT that would actually *affect* >>>>> the ITU's scope -- based on the terms already set up. i.e., the US >>>>> said don't change the definition of telecommunications that the ITU >>>>> had in the ITRs -- because the definition was "technology neutral" -- >>>>> but the definition was already stated as generally as the ITU needed >>>>> to apply it in all the areas the ITU wanted to and had already been >>>>> doing so. 2) This language of "resisting expansion" comes across to >>>>> the outside world as if something had been accomplished, when really >>>>> all it does is assure that things stayed the same. >>>>> >>>>> Similar things happen in many of these arenas. >>>>> >>>>> Without talking about the real issue here re telecommunications and >>>>> information services, I hope everyone appreciates how little the >>>>> notion of "technology neutrality" really says about actual policy -- >>>>> beyond just saying "we like to state the principle generally" -- and >>>>> that comes *after* you determine the very technical issue of what the >>>>> principle is. >>>>> >>>>> So don't take it too seriously. You still have to do the policy >>>>> development, and "technology neutrality" doesn't instruct you on that. >>>>> I'm not even convinced it's anything to fuss over as a "final draft" >>>>> notion either, but I'll go along so long as the actual policy >>>>> development is alive. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Seth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>>> For those of you looking for good definitions for these terms: >>>>>> >>>>>> For what it is worth, both of the 2015 definitions Erik quotes aren't very >>>>>> good, in part because they're very un-technology-neutral (in many ways). The >>>>>> second is worse because it uses the phrase "communication to the public" >>>>>> which is a defined term in European and international copyright law which >>>>>> has no place being used here and it also mixes together both the ISP and >>>>>> services which use networks to provide Internet-based services to the >>>>>> public. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the first, better to use the definition for "public telecommunications >>>>>> transport service" from the WTO GATS Annex on Telecommunications: "“Public >>>>>> telecommunications transport service” means any telecommunications transport >>>>>> service required, explicitly or in effect, by a Member to be offered to the >>>>>> public generally. Such services may include, inter alia, telegraph, >>>>>> telephone, telex, and data transmission typically involving the real-time >>>>>> transmission of customer-supplied information between two or more points >>>>>> without any end-to-end change in the form or content of the customer's >>>>>> information." >>>>>> >>>>>> As you can see, it is very broad (thanks to "inter alia." >>>>>> >>>>>> The definition of "Telecommunications" from the annex is also useful: >>>>>> "“Telecommunications” means the transmission and reception of signals by any >>>>>> electromagnetic means." >>>>>> >>>>>> For those of you who support network neutrality, you may be surprised to >>>>>> learn that the WTO has obligations for all WTO members that could easily be >>>>>> argued support NN. It is a complex area (as members make commitments as to >>>>>> how they'll apply these rules) but it is still really worthwhile to look at >>>>>> this language from the annex (if you're wondering what a "Member" is, that's >>>>>> the term used for WTO member-countries): >>>>>> >>>>>> (c) Each Member shall ensure that service suppliers of any other Member may >>>>>> use public telecommunications transport networks and services for the >>>>>> movement of information within and across borders, including for >>>>>> intra-corporate communications of such service suppliers, and for access to >>>>>> information contained in data bases or otherwise stored in machine-readable >>>>>> form in the territory of any Member. Any new or amended measures of a Member >>>>>> significantly affecting such use shall be notified and shall be subject to >>>>>> consultation, in accordance with relevant provisions of the Agreement. >>>>>> >>>>>> (d) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, a Member may take such measures >>>>>> as are necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages, >>>>>> subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner >>>>>> which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination >>>>>> or a disguised restriction on trade in services. >>>>>> >>>>>> (e) Each Member shall ensure that no condition is imposed on access to and >>>>>> use of public telecommunications transport networks and services other than >>>>>> as necessary: >>>>>> >>>>>> (i) to safeguard the public service responsibilities of suppliers of public >>>>>> telecommunications transport networks and services, in particular their >>>>>> ability to make their networks or services available to the public >>>>>> generally; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (ii) to protect the technical integrity of public telecommunications >>>>>> transport networks or services; or >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (iii) to ensure that service suppliers of any other Member do not supply >>>>>> services unless permitted pursuant to commitments in the Member's Schedule. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (f) Provided that they satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph (e), >>>>>> conditions for access to and use of public telecommunications transport >>>>>> networks and services may include: >>>>>> >>>>>> (i) restrictions on resale or shared use of such services; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (ii) a requirement to use specified technical interfaces, including >>>>>> interface protocols, for inter-connection with such networks and services; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (iii) requirements, where necessary, for the inter-operability of such >>>>>> services and to encourage the achievement of the goals set out in paragraph >>>>>> 7(a); >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (iv) type approval of terminal or other equipment which interfaces with the >>>>>> network and technical requirements relating to the attachment of such >>>>>> equipment to such networks; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (v) restrictions on inter-connection of private leased or owned circuits >>>>>> with such networks or services or with circuits leased or owned by another >>>>>> service supplier; or >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (vi) notification, registration and licensing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (g) Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs of this section, a developing >>>>>> country Member may, consistent with its level of development, place >>>>>> reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications >>>>>> transport networks and services necessary to strengthen its domestic >>>>>> telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its >>>>>> participation in international trade in telecommunications services. Such >>>>>> conditions shall be specified in the Member's Schedule. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5 Mar 2015, at 08:19, JOSEFSSON Erik >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> To supplement Amelia, here are Council definitions as elaborated in Brussels >>>>>> on 2 March 2015: >>>>>> >>>>>> (1) “internet access service” means a publicly available electronic >>>>>> communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby >>>>>> connectivity to substantially all end points of the internet, irrespective >>>>>> of the network technology and terminal equipment used; >>>>>> >>>>>> (2) “provider of electronic communications to the public” means an >>>>>> undertaking providing public electronic communications networks or publicly >>>>>> available electronic communications services. >>>>>> >>>>>> What's still unclear to me (sorry) is whether anything in the TSM package >>>>>> change and/or contradict the Telecoms Package (2009/136 + 140/EC)? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards. >>>>>> >>>>>> //Erik >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Amelia Andersdotter >>>>>> [amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday 4 March 2015 23:27 >>>>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> For completion, the European Union has defined "information society >>>>>> services" in 1998 as "'2. "service", any Information Society service, >>>>>> that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a >>>>>> distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a >>>>>> recipient of services." >>>>>> >>>>>> See >>>>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31998L0048&qid=1425507396962&from=EN >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This should be the amended act: >>>>>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425507490929&uri=CELEX:31998L0034 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> These texts have been mostly ignored since 1998, but re-emerged in the >>>>>> network and information security discussions after 2013. Some of you may >>>>>> be familiar with ongoing discussions of whether internet services should >>>>>> be included therein (such as cloud services), due to the heavy >>>>>> obligations laid on service providers to collaborate with public >>>>>> authorities were that to be the case. >>>>>> >>>>>> best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Amelia >>>>>> >>>>>> On 03/04/15 18:15, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Seth and others, >>>>>> >>>>>> With respect to the last sentence, WTO obligations are intentionally >>>>>> designed to be technology neutral; otherwise, trade commitments would be >>>>>> out-of-date the moment they were made. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is widely understood that the Internet, and many activities that take >>>>>> place upon it as services, are covered by existing commitments. >>>>>> >>>>>> I recommend the writings of Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, perhaps the most widely >>>>>> recognised expert in digital trade worldwide, many of which can be found >>>>>> here: >>>>>> http://www.ecipe.org/browse/?subj_subject=41&subj_category=ecipepublications&subj_year=&subj_order=recent >>>>>> >>>>>> As to classical definitions, the Telecom Reference Paper is probably your >>>>>> best source, see here: >>>>>> https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect you'll find that despite its age, the reference paper has stood >>>>>> the tests of time quite well. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:49, Seth Johnson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That looks like ISIC. Thanks. I'm solid on what the terms mean re >>>>>> the Internet and the US telecom policy, just looking for what "the >>>>>> source" is at WTO so I can address what WTO's doing on their terms. >>>>>> It doesn't seem that there's really a subject-specific cite because >>>>>> WTO doesn't really deal with what these terms mean for the Internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Jean-Jacques Sahel >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> See this WTO December 2014 update on methodology regarding trade statistics: >>>>>> http://webservices.wto.org/resources/meta/def_method_e.pdf and in >>>>>> particular: >>>>>> >>>>>> (i) communications services includes telecommunications, postal and courier >>>>>> services. Telecommunications services encompasses the transmission of sound, >>>>>> images or other information by telephone, telex, telegram, radio and >>>>>> television cable and broadcasting, satellite, electronic mail, facsimile >>>>>> services etc., including business network services, teleconferencing and >>>>>> support services. It does not include the value of the information >>>>>> transported. Also included are cellular telephone services, Internet >>>>>> backbone services and on-line access services, including provision of access >>>>>> to the Internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> [..] (v) computer and information services is subdivided into computer >>>>>> services (hardware and software related services and data processing >>>>>> services), news agency services (provision of news, photographs, and >>>>>> feature articles to the media), and other information provision services >>>>>> (database services and web search portals) >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Seth Johnson >>>>>> Sent: 04 March 2015 16:12 >>>>>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>>>>> Cc: Eduardo Bertoni; Marilia Maciel; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, >>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Net Neutrality - summary of FCC new rules >>>>>> >>>>>> Where should I look for those definitions at WTO - information service vs >>>>>> telecommunication service? >>>>>> >>>>>> I use the ISIC. But that's a breakdown of industries, not of those two >>>>>> categories. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not here: >>>>>> https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/glossary_e.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> Or here (telecom, but not info service): >>>>>> http://wtoterm.wto.org/multiterm/index.mto?locale=en >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Seth >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> These are all well-defined terms in the WTO agreement. Whatever you >>>>>> may think of trade policy, it would be wise at least to consider >>>>>> carefully these terms in the context of those definitions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4 Mar 2015, at 15:44, Eduardo Bertoni wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Marilia, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for sharing this. I begun working on a short piece in Spanish >>>>>> with similar goals: explain the impact of the new rules. The FGV >>>>>> document is more than welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the time being, my humble suggestion is this: for many people it >>>>>> is not clear the difference between "information services" and >>>>>> "telecommunications services". So I would suggest to explain that >>>>>> difference. The concept of "common carrier" might help. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Eduardo >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Marilia Maciel >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> The researchers from the Center for Technology and Society of FGV in >>>>>> Rio de Janeiro have prepared a concise summary of FCC new rules that >>>>>> might be useful. The communities in Brazil are very focused on the NN >>>>>> debate since we engaged in a public consultation to further regulate >>>>>> the net neutrality principle enshrined in the Brazilian Civil Rights >>>>>> Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil). >>>>>> >>>>>> The document will be updated as more information is made available. >>>>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12RPZvyWKWxQwg116H8L8hjsoNZqsxEjwF >>>>>> 7KBfF-gjqo/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> CTS/FGV >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Marília Maciel >>>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>>>>> Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - >>>>>> FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>>>> >>>>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine >>>>>> Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital >>>>>> Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as 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 ca at cafonso.ca Tue Mar 3 08:45:03 2015 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:45:03 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Oral statement - UN Human Rights Council re: SR on the right to privacy In-Reply-To: <54F5B264.8090904@cafonso.ca> References: <54F4F2D4.5020606@apc.org> <54F5B264.8090904@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <54F5BADF.3050004@cafonso.ca> Sorry, I think we made a mistake, as the text is not yet public. We have just concealed it. Waiting for clearance. fraternal regards --c.a. On 03-03-15 10:08, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi Deborah, I've just sent Tomaso Nupef's support. We have posted a > version in Brazilian Portuguese in our institutional portal as well as > our online magazine RETS, with a call for BR NGOs to support it: > > http://www.nupef.org.br/?q=node/119 > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 03/02/2015 08:31 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> As you might be aware, there is an ongoing effort to establish a UN >> Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy. The Human Rights Council is >> expected to consider this at its current session, which began today in >> Geneva. >> >> If established, the rapporteur will provide much-needed leadership and >> guidance on developing an understanding of the scope and content on the >> right to privacy, as well as strengthening the monitoring of states and >> companies' compliance with their responsibility to respect and protect >> the right to privacy in their laws, policies and practices. >> >> We have been working with Privacy International and others to develop an >> oral statement (attached), which will be delivered during the session of >> the Council. We are inviting NGOs to join this statement in order to >> send a strong signal of support for the creation of a Special Rapporteur >> on the right to privacy. >> >> Given the previous interest on Best Bits in privacy and surveillance >> issues, I wanted to share this statement here to give you the >> opportunity to sign on. If your organisation is interested to join it, >> please email Tomaso Falchetta (at tomasof at privacyinternational.org >> ) and Shawna Finnegan >> (shawna at apc.org) by *no later than Wednesday, 11 March*. >> >> *Please note that this statement is not for publication before 13 March. * >> >> All the best, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Mar 7 12:37:22 2015 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 18:37:22 +0100 Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> This discussion is bizarr. Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided. Wolfgang BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues". The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been advocating for a long time. Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr. Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient comfort to "force" it into international documents. The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in practice. M -----Original Message----- From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still needs to be developed. Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at all. Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into international documents. Wolfgang Benedek Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < gurstein at gmail.com>: >And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but >rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >"multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". > >M > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert >Klein >Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > >On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang >( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >wrote: >> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >> deepen their understanding. >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> > >Dear Mr. Benedek, > >thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only >formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only >partly included." > >I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only >partially, included. > >Thanks in advance, > >Norbert Klein >Cambodia > > > > From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 8 05:57:54 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:27:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and some other emails of a similar kind. We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the circularity with some specifics. 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used in IG docs. 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed. 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here. 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here. Anyone? parminder On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > This discussion is bizarr. > > Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided. > > Wolfgang > > BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues". > The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. > > > > > I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and > role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on > how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet > something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been > advocating for a long time. > > > > Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the > definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr. > Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working > definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the > endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of > US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient > comfort to "force" it into international documents. > > > > The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism, > a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed, > shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition > either in theory or in practice. > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] > Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of > "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > > > First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic > governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an > alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still > needs to be developed. > > > > Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include > certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the > UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector > of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical > issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any > elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were > not taken up at all. > > > > Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have > no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept > of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of > the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo > (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work > for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of > the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into > international documents. > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > > > > > > Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < > gurstein at gmail.com>: > > > >> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but >> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". >> M >> -----Original Message----- >> From: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >> [ > mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert > >> Klein >> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang >> ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >> wrote: >>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >>> deepen their understanding. >>> Wolfgang Benedek >> Dear Mr. Benedek, >> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only >> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only >> partly included." >> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only >> partially, included. >> Thanks in advance, >> Norbert Klein >> Cambodia > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Mar 8 06:16:41 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 15:46:41 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> References: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net> And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is happening quite fine?) If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal footing, in Internet-related global policy decision making - that is enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people choke on making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from simple democratic principles and ideals. Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are evident here, which so many find so unsightly? Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back immediately on that. Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, we will be making progress. parminder On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote: > I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and some other > emails of a similar kind. > > We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the > circularity with some specifics. > > 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism > (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be > used in IG docs. > > 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an > impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively > insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others > thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion > (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do > you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively > dismayed. > > 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus > on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with > about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to > democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people > playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the > middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont > mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word > goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here. > > 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said > at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the > term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, > the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been > strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it > not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar > manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest > consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on > what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very > clear what is the main issue here. Anyone? > > parminder > > > On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> This discussion is bizarr. >> >> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues". >> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. >> >> >> >> >> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and >> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on >> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet >> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been >> advocating for a long time. >> >> >> >> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the >> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr. >> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working >> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the >> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of >> US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient >> comfort to "force" it into international documents. >> >> >> >> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism, >> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed, >> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition >> either in theory or in practice. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] >> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM >> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> >> >> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic >> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an >> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still >> needs to be developed. >> >> >> >> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include >> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the >> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector >> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical >> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any >> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were >> not taken up at all. >> >> >> >> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have >> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept >> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of >> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo >> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work >> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of >> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into >> international documents. >> >> >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < >> gurstein at gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but >>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". >>> M >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> [ >> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert >> >>> Klein >>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang >>> ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>> wrote: >>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >>>> deepen their understanding. >>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> Dear Mr. Benedek, >>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only >>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only >>> partly included." >>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only >>> partially, included. >>> Thanks in advance, >>> Norbert Klein >>> Cambodia >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Sun Mar 8 09:08:51 2015 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 13:08:51 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net> References: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>,<54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I think the underlying understanding is congruent with what Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently gave in New Zealand at http://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to the part where transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions that grew out of technical work on making the internet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a social and political program". Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet governance? Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference of connected dots? //Erik ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is happening quite fine?) If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal footing, in Internet-related global policy decision making - that is enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people choke on making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from simple democratic principles and ideals. Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are evident here, which so many find so unsightly? Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back immediately on that. Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, we will be making progress. parminder On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote: I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and some other emails of a similar kind. We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the circularity with some specifics. 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used in IG docs. 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed. 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here. 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here. Anyone? parminder On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: This discussion is bizarr. Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided. Wolfgang BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues". The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been advocating for a long time. Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr. Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient comfort to "force" it into international documents. The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism, a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed, shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition either in theory or in practice. M -----Original Message----- From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still needs to be developed. Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were not taken up at all. Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into international documents. Wolfgang Benedek Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < gurstein at gmail.com>: And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote: As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to deepen their understanding. Wolfgang Benedek Dear Mr. Benedek, thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly included." I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only partially, included. Thanks in advance, Norbert Klein Cambodia ____________________________________________________________ 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Mar 8 11:31:08 2015 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 16:31:08 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <14bf9957e78.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>,<54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <14bf9957e78.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <8B99A046-8DB9-481E-AB7E-FC501F9FFE88@theglobaljournal.net> > The merits of democracy are not being argued (GREAT NEWS!!) here as much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles. > Solely? No. This is solely your assumption. In a multilateral context? No, wrong again. One problem that do have MSists is their dear denial of any role to governments. MSits favorite sport is governmental bashing (except for USG, the good guy of their story). In UN circles. No. Most of its use happens outside the UN, in civil life. > Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic. > Would it be "through consensus" democracies would have gone no way. A majority, made by honest voting in a clear constitutional framework, can only exercise the will of the people. A consensus can be a good warning paving the way to a new collective rule, still a vote might often turn it into something that will be respected, transparent and accountable. Consensus is a very vague process, easily flawed. Rough consensus is even worse. Again governance is no to be built on techies's philosophy of daily practice. Consensus related to governance fits to capos and rubber barons. Not to public policy making (which is where we do have a fight). > The question here is what political significance will get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures. > Especially when its very existence is denied by MSits who, amusingly, claimed to be MSits for the sake of democracy. MSits know better what the people need. No, JNC is not favoring Multilateral governance. This another assumption is a lie. JNC is advocating a third way. Most MSists are bodyguards to the status-quo. We see it in any list, any venue. We have seen it again during the connecting the dots, or the Dotting the I's, as Louis Pouzin put it. Le 8 mars 2015 à 14:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > The merits of democracy are not being argued here as much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles. > > Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic. The question here is what political significance will get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures. > > On March 8, 2015 6:40:17 PM JOSEFSSON Erik wrote: > >> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I think the underlying understanding is congruent with what Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently gave in New Zealand athttp://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to the part where transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions that grew out of technical work on making the internet. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s >> >> Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a social and political program". >> >> Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet governance? >> >> Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference of connected dots? >> >> //Erik >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16 >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is happening quite fine?) >> >> If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal footing, in Internet-related global policy decision making - that is enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people choke on making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from simple democratic principles and ideals. >> >> Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are evident here, which so many find so unsightly? >> >> Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back immediately on that. >> >> Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, we will be making progress. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote: >>> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and some other emails of a similar kind. >>> >>> We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the circularity with some specifics. >>> >>> 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used in IG docs. >>> >>> 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed. >>> >>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here. >>> >>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here. Anyone? >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>>> This discussion is bizarr. >>>> >>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, >>>> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity >>>> building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they >>>> communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a >>>> "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal >>>> partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and >>>> options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded >>>> from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement >>>> on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided. >>>> >>>> Wolfgang >>>> >>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with >>>> paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the >>>> light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making >>>> procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and >>>> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues". >>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive >>>> rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states >>>> (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on >>>> "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. >>>> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move >>>> forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting >>>> model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and >>>> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a >>>> consensus on >>>> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet >>>> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been >>>> advocating for a long time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the >>>> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my >>>> quotes from Mr. >>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working >>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the >>>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of >>>> US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could have >>>> sufficient >>>> comfort to "force" it into international documents. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism, >>>> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed, >>>> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition >>>> either in theory or in practice. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] >>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic >>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an >>>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still >>>> needs to be developed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include >>>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the >>>> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector >>>> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical >>>> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any >>>> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were >>>> not taken up at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have >>>> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept >>>> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of >>>> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo >>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work >>>> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of >>>> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into >>>> international documents. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < >>>> gurstein at gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't >>>>> simply a >>>>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final >>>>> document" but >>>>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >>>>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". >>>>> M >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: >>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>>> [ >>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Norbert >>>> >>>>> Klein >>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >>>>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang >>>>> ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>>>>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >>>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >>>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >>>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >>>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >>>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >>>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >>>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >>>>>> deepen their understanding. >>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek, >>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only >>>>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or >>>>> only >>>>> partly included." >>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a >>>>> similar >>>>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I >>>>> would >>>>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >>>>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or >>>>> only >>>>> partially, included. >>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>> Norbert Klein >>>>> Cambodia >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Mar 8 14:04:59 2015 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 19:04:59 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> References: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54FC8F4B.9070901@wzb.eu> > 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus > on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with > about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to > democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people > playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the > middle of that whole thing, no)? Yes, I was, and I am proud of that. What I meant to say: Language games played an important role during the intergovernmental negotiation of the WSIS documents. Those with access to the working groups could marvel about these skillful diplomatic maneuvers that could only be deciphered by those who knew the historic subtext of certain wordings. Civil society did not engage in those plays with words. In endless meetings we discussed specific proposals, among them the merits of a new multi-stakeholder forum that would address internet governance issues. Sometimes implicit but often enough very explicit, we fought for making the regulation of the Internet a more democratic endevaour. The multi-stakeholder concept was our entry ticket into the dialogue with governments but it was also our approach towards democratizing the global management of the internet. Multi-stakeholder was never meant to be separate or even the opposite of democracy. On the contrary, it has been the attempt to expand the democratic idea, which clearly has been optimized and operationalized for the nation state and thus has not much to offer for the global sphere. There is so much to do, there is so much to experiment and learn, in my view it is misguided to frame the current state of things as a binary choice between democracy and multi-stakeholderism. I don't see how one concept could thrive without the other in the Internet world. Right now, it is an open and contested question among civil society groups what democracy on the global level means. Unless we agree on a set of basic principles, it may be impossible to use this term in official documents. Avoiding this term does not imply that any of us consider democracy less relevant than those who want to see it included. Jeanette Jeanette Why this gratuitous advice that dont > mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes > into ever single place. Lets please be fair here. > > 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at > the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term > 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the > whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been > strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it > not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner > about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest > consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on > what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very > clear what is the main issue here. Anyone? > > parminder > > > On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> This discussion is bizarr. >> >> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues". >> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. >> >> >> >> >> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and >> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a consensus on >> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet >> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been >> advocating for a long time. >> >> >> >> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the >> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my quotes from Mr. >> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working >> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the >> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of >> US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could have sufficient >> comfort to "force" it into international documents. >> >> >> >> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism, >> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed, >> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition >> either in theory or in practice. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] >> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM >> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> >> >> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic >> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an >> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still >> needs to be developed. >> >> >> >> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include >> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the >> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector >> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical >> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any >> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were >> not taken up at all. >> >> >> >> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have >> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept >> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of >> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo >> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work >> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of >> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into >> international documents. >> >> >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < >> gurstein at gmail.com>: >> >> >> >>> And to be very clear, in the case of "democracy" it wasn't simply a >>> matter of the concept "not making it into the final document" but >>> rather that those involved made the clear political choice to promote >>> "multistakeholderism" and suppress "democracy". >>> M >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> [ >> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert >> >>> Klein >>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang >>> ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>> wrote: >>>> As a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is important to >>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the conference was to >>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and advise on the >>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several plenary and >>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make it into the >>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is all work in >>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or only partly >>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were elaborated >>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in order to >>>> deepen their understanding. >>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> Dear Mr. Benedek, >>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only >>> formalities like "Also other concepts dear to others were not or only >>> partly included." >>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a similar >>> importance and weight could be lined up with "democracy." I would >>> appreciate it if you, as a participant in this UNESCO conference, could >>> share some of these "other concepts" which were also not, or only >>> partially, included. >>> Thanks in advance, >>> Norbert Klein >>> Cambodia >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Mar 8 17:34:26 2015 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:34:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <14bfa05b508.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>,<54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <14bf9957e78.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <8B99A046-8DB9-481E-AB7E-FC501F9FFE88@theglobaljournal.net> <14bfa05b508.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Suresh, One question between you and me : are you that familiar with such animal as you sound expert with caqueting and trolling. I just realize we have a lot more to learn from you. Such a cute little animal indeed, with only one leg, one eye, one key idea : the world is divided in multi-stakeholderism - or should we call it expanded democracy as Jeanette defines it- and Multi-la-lateralism. Any strabismus issue? Does this animal still have a brain, unless it doesn't need it anymore? We'll keep this for the off-line humor chat-room and our MSist freak show. Thanks for your insight and reflection. JC Le 8 mars 2015 à 16:34, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Amazing. A third way that still works out in favor of the multilateral advocates > > If it walks like a multilateral duck, if it quacks like a multilateral duck.. > On March 8, 2015 9:01:14 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > >>> The merits of democracy are not being argued (GREAT NEWS!!) here as much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles. >>> >> Solely? No. This is solely your assumption. >> In a multilateral context? No, wrong again. One problem that do have MSists is their dear denial of any role to governments. MSits favorite sport is governmental bashing (except for USG, the good guy of their story). >> In UN circles. No. Most of its use happens outside the UN, in civil life. >> >>> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic. >>> >> >> Would it be "through consensus" democracies would have gone no way. A majority, made by honest voting in a clear constitutional framework, can only exercise the will of the people. A consensus can be a good warning paving the way to a new collective rule, still a vote might often turn it into something that will be respected, transparent and accountable. Consensus is a very vague process, easily flawed. Rough consensus is even worse. Again governance is no to be built on techies's philosophy of daily practice. Consensus related to governance fits to capos and rubber barons. Not to public policy making (which is where we do have a fight). >> >>> The question here is what political significance will get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures. >>> >> >> Especially when its very existence is denied by MSits who, amusingly, claimed to be MSits for the sake of democracy. MSits know better what the people need. >> >> No, JNC is not favoring Multilateral governance. This another assumption is a lie. JNC is advocating a third way. Most MSists are bodyguards to the status-quo. We see it in any list, any venue. We have seen it again during the connecting the dots, or the Dotting the I's, as Louis Pouzin put it. >> >> >> >> >> Le 8 mars 2015 à 14:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >> >>> The merits of democracy are not being argued here as much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context in UN circles. >>> >>> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic. The question here is what political significance will get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures. >>> >>> On March 8, 2015 6:40:17 PM JOSEFSSON Erik wrote: >>> >>>> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I think the underlying understanding is congruent with what Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently gave in New Zealand athttp://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to the part where transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions that grew out of technical work on making the internet. >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s >>>> >>>> Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they are themselves a social and political program". >>>> >>>> Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet governance? >>>> >>>> Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference of connected dots? >>>> >>>> //Erik >>>> >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] >>>> Sent: Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16 >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>>> >>>> And of course, the main question still is: what is your Internet-related global public policy decision making model? (Or do you have a case that Internet related global policy making is not needed, or that it is happening quite fine?) >>>> >>>> If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same role as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or on an equal footing, in Internet-related global policy decision making - that is enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing contentions be put behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that difficult? Why do people choke on making this simple assertion, which would clearly follow from simple democratic principles and ideals. >>>> >>>> Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are evident here, which so many find so unsightly? >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) that they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come back immediately on that. >>>> >>>> Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points of differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long email exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie assertions, and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political talk here, and seek closing differences, and if we cant, at least know what the precise differences are. If we can commit ourself to this concise methodology, we will be making progress. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and some other emails of a similar kind. >>>>> >>>>> We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut the circularity with some specifics. >>>>> >>>>> 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is MSism (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no longer be used in IG docs. >>>>> >>>>> 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent non-inclusion (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot, and is positively dismayed. >>>>> >>>>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and focus on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc about with about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one and a half to democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or were some people playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you really were in the middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we will always be making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. Lets please be fair here. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has said at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the use of the term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from the document, the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? There would have been strong denouncements and walk outs. This is direct question - would it not have been so? Then why cant people think and act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' term. That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this other hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened if the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main issue here. Anyone? >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>>>>> This >>>>>> discussion is bizarr. >>>>>> >>>>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, >>>>>> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity >>>>>> building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they >>>>>> communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a >>>>>> "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal >>>>>> partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and >>>>>> options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded >>>>>> from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement >>>>>> on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolfgang >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with >>>>>> paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the >>>>>> light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making >>>>>> procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and >>>>>> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues". >>>>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive >>>>>> rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states >>>>>> (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on >>>>>> "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. >>>>>> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move >>>>>> forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting >>>>>> model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and >>>>>> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a >>>>>> consensus on >>>>>> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet >>>>>> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been >>>>>> advocating for a long time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the >>>>>> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my >>>>>> quotes from Mr. >>>>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working >>>>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the >>>>>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of >>>>>> US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could have >>>>>> sufficient >>>>>> comfort to "force" it into international documents. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism, >>>>>> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed, >>>>>> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition >>>>>> either in theory or in practice. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> M >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>>>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] >>>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM >>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein >>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >>>>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic >>>>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an >>>>>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still >>>>>> needs to be developed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include >>>>>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the >>>>>> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector >>>>>> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical >>>>>> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any >>>>>> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were >>>>>> not taken up at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have >>>>>> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept >>>>>> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of >>>>>> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo >>>>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work >>>>>> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of >>>>>> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into >>>>>> international documents. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < >>>>>> gurstein at gmail.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of >>>>>>> "democracy" it wasn't >>>>>>> simply a >>>>>>> matter of the concept >>>>>>> "not making it into the final >>>>>>> document" but >>>>>>> rather that those involved >>>>>>> made the clear political choice to promote >>>>>>> "multistakeholderism" and >>>>>>> suppress "democracy". >>>>>>> M >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: >>>>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> >>>>>>> [ >>>>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf >>>>>> Of Norbert >>>>>> >>>>>>> Klein >>>>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] >>>>>>> [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>>>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 >>>>>>> PM, Benedek, Wolfgang >>>>>>> ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> As >>>>>>>> a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>>>>>>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is >>>>>>>> important to >>>>>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the >>>>>>>> conference was to >>>>>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and >>>>>>>> advise on the >>>>>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several >>>>>>>> plenary and >>>>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>>>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make >>>>>>>> it into the >>>>>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is >>>>>>>> all work in >>>>>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or >>>>>>>> only partly >>>>>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were >>>>>>>> elaborated >>>>>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in >>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>> deepen their understanding. >>>>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>>>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek, >>>>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only >>>>>>> formalities like >>>>>>> "Also other concepts dear to others were not or >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> partly included." >>>>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a >>>>>>> similar >>>>>>> importance and weight could >>>>>>> be lined up with "democracy." I >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> appreciate it if you, as a >>>>>>> participant in this UNESCO conference, could >>>>>>> share some of these >>>>>>> "other concepts" which were also not, or >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> partially, included. >>>>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>>>> Norbert Klein >>>>>>> Cambodia >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 dave at difference.com.au Mon Mar 9 03:42:35 2015 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:42:35 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality in the next Internet In-Reply-To: <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B0612C0BE@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <54ED3B48.4000106@di.unipi.it> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B0612FFFB@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <80D52C4BA93E6544BF778F54AC3DE01F4162AA9B23@CRPMBOXPRD09.polycom.com> <54EF58BB.6060801@firsthand.net> <54EF917E.6010706@imagicity.com> <004301d0526f$0db6ddc0$29249940$@ch> <54F06331.9050007@veni.com> <54F0F395.4050005@gih.com> <4AF53A50-9778-4AAE-B753-95FB73541FCE@frobbit.se> <54F1835A.8020601@gih.com> <00d701d0534c$85b3d700$911b8500$@ch> <54F1AEEE.4040900@meetinghouse.net> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli nk.ca> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <50FF5DFD-2DE4-4B46-A900-EEF891B78635@difference.com.au> Is it just me, or does this just sound like a very mild generalisation of the idea of CDNs like Akamai (similar services provided through Amazons AWS)? A concept already in use by most large internet media providers? It does interact with net neutrality policy in some ways. A lot of the network neutrality debate can get into detailed discussion of when it is appropriate for an ISP to charge for bandwidth, and if some bandwidth providers are heavily buffered this can make a difference (especially in situations where some hops, such as international links, are much more expensive to provide). Cheers David On 3 Mar 2015, at 12:02 am, nathalie coupet wrote: > According to Van Johansen (Slow-start algorythm), the Internet should change from a ''conversational" architecture with connections between two nodes at a time, to a content-based architecture that would use the memory stored in the infrastructure through leveraging the existing buffering occurring at each hop, in order to send content to a very great number of addresses at the same time. > Thus, Netflix would be able to send its content to great number of households not from a single address point, but from everywhere to everywhere. > > Could someone explain in more detail exactly to what buffering he is referring to, and how it would affect Net Neutrality? > > Thanks, > > Nathalie > > From: Gary Kenward > To: Nick Ashton-Hart > Cc: internetpolicy > Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 10:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be defined neutrally > > Having worked with those telcos on Internet service models I can assure you that their goal is to maximize their return on investment. And their primary objective is to move up the food chain and become application service and content providers (e.g. Crave.tv). > > To be clear, for me working with the telecom industry was not a generally satisfying experience. I still cannot get over the fact that we can deliver Mordecai on-demand to a large number of house-holds, not to mention pictures of cats, food,...while our first responders have to deal with 20+ year old communications technology. > > > Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. > > The information contained in this document is private and confidential. This document is not to > be copied, printed or re-distributed without the explicit permission of the author. > > On Mar 1, 2015, at 05:34, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> The other thing that strikes me from the later part of this thread about business models is this: >> >> To what extent would the large telcos who don't like the FCC's NN decision change their view if they weren't for-profit companies? >> >> You would have to imagine that at least some of the very strong opposition from the Verizons and AT&Ts are because they want to maximise return, and charging services for priority is another way to maximise return. >> >> On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> >>> At least in the states, there are lots of examples of very well run municipal electric utilities (about 18% cheaper on average, too), and that's who's branching into telecom - they need the data nets for SCADA and metering and such, and once you start putting people on poles to run wires.... About the only places you can get gigE FTTH in the states, are from a small number of munis. Munis are also a very far cry from utilities run by a national government. >>> >>> The problem with telecom, as with most utilities, comes down to right-of-ways -- there's a real first-mover advantage, after you've got pole space and buildout, it's very hard for competition to move in. >>> >>> Gary W Kenward wrote: >>>> I agree that monopolies are bad, for all market sectors. >>>> >>>> However, I still remember how bad the state run telephone services were in Canada and Europe, and I haven’t seen anything that would suggest today’s governments would do any better in providing packet carrier services, particularly at the municipal level. >>>> >>>> The right approach is to begin with a revitalization of fair competition laws. >>>> >>>> G >>>> */ >>>> >>>> >>>> /* >>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. >>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ADROIT TECHNOLOGIC. >>>> >>>>> On 2015.02.28, at 09:30, Miles Fidelman > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It's called municipal broadband. >>>>> >>>>> Seriously - private, monoploy (or duopoly) utilities is just a bad model. >>>>> >>>>> Miles Fidelman >>>>> >>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>>> It seems to me there's a good argument for cooperative and not-for-profit models for ISPs. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 13:54, Veni Markovski > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> By the way , when my company was investing in development and building our own network in Bulgaria, the price of fiber and cat-5 cables was very high. Yet we did it, and provided affordable internet for all. But we didn't have shareholders to ask us to cut expenses and increase profits... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, ac5jw . > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This reminds me of the earlier times when we had that issue of >>>>>>> who paid for telephone calls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The conflict was that people who received telephone calls on >>>>>>> their mobile devices would get billed and charged for minutes and >>>>>>> for money when they received calls that they were unable to give >>>>>>> informed consent to in advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The discussion of late on paying for services seems to follow >>>>>>> these lines. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am sure that the taxpayers are funding for some basic >>>>>>> telecommunications services to include Internet and that the >>>>>>> funding goes directly to telecommunications providers to maintain >>>>>>> a common system. At a minimum, all American taxpayers already >>>>>>> funding for the federal users of the Internet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not see having users on the Internet as a problem, because >>>>>>> the Internet serves them. I do have a problem with >>>>>>> double-dipping, where the man in the middle (providing the >>>>>>> communications) chooses to charge both entities higher and higher >>>>>>> rates while selling access to a common system of communication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am concerned that at some point, the costs of provisioning and >>>>>>> building the system are amortized away and the resulting high >>>>>>> charges would just line the pockets of investors, service >>>>>>> providers, and speculators without going to improve the >>>>>>> infrastructure for everyone, to include new users coming online. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe that net neutrality should consider the issue of >>>>>>> infrastructure delay and retardation because it ultimately >>>>>>> disserves the purpose of net neutrality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the infrastructure is indeed improved upon, meaning more >>>>>>> bandwidth comes available and more users can access it, then the >>>>>>> service providers will continue to receive some taxpayer funding >>>>>>> and even a larger customer base for newly established private >>>>>>> accounts on the improved infrastructure. This might even be >>>>>>> considered a win-win opportunity for all to benefit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Amateur Earth Station AC5JW >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Miles >>>>>>> Fidelman>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lack of competition, action by the incumbents to block new >>>>>>> competition, and action by the incumbents to favor their own >>>>>>> content services. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Miles Fidelman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Richard Hill wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed, as I understand it, the FCC has intervened in the >>>>>>> US because of the lack of competition in that country. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:*InternetPolicy >>>>>>> [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Veni Markovski >>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:41 >>>>>>> *To:* Patrik Fältström >>>>>>> *Cc:*internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be >>>>>>> defined neutrally >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1, as an ISP, we always wanted to build and offer more >>>>>>> bandwidth - not last reason was because our competitors >>>>>>> were doing the same. In the USA there's practically no >>>>>>> real competition - you choose between the cable company >>>>>>> (formerly tv), and the phone company (usually one). When >>>>>>> I moved there, I wanted to continue with my business, but >>>>>>> turned out regulations are made in such a way that they >>>>>>> don't allow competition. As a matter of fact, this past >>>>>>> week I saw a message that the government would allow the >>>>>>> creation of municipal networks, and the telcos protest as >>>>>>> this will be unfair competition... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Patrik Fältström >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 28 feb 2015, at 09:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is this really what happens? Is the ball solely in the >>>>>>> ISP court? I'd >>>>>>>> tend to think the responsibility is shared these days. >>>>>>> The explosion of >>>>>>>> video services has shown an incredible growth in >>>>>>> traffic which, if I was >>>>>>>> an ISP, I'd find very difficult to follow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? A user can not use more than what the ISP connect >>>>>>> them with. If you get 1Mbps from your ISP you can not use >>>>>>> more than 1Mbps, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Look at Netflix for example - >>>>>>>> accounting for 35% of all US Internet traffic during >>>>>>> peak periods? >>>>>>>> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/11/21/netflix-now-accounts-35-overall-us-internet-traffic/ >>>>>>>> Does it pay fairly for all of this traffic? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, for an ISP an IP packet is an IP packet. Customers >>>>>>> want to use more of them so the ISP can sell more of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once again, the issue you point at is that users get >>>>>>> 100Mbps (for example) and earlier used 1Mbps but now uses >>>>>>> 10Mbps. This implies the traffic in the network have >>>>>>> increased with a multiplier of 10 but the ISP do not get >>>>>>> more money. Simply because what the user uses is >>>>>>> unexpected but still "within" the product that the ISP >>>>>>> actually have sold. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note: I am not blaming the ISP for doing the wrong thing. >>>>>>> I am just explaining what I see the issue is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If an ISP has sold "up to 100Mbps" and users earlier did >>>>>>> use 1Mbps, but now 10Mbps, why would the ISP get money >>>>>>> from Netflix because the 9Mbps unexpected traffic is to >>>>>>> Netflix? Netflix already pays for the 9Mbps to their data >>>>>>> centers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Patrik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Veni >>>>>>> http://veni.com >>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski >>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *** >>>>>>> The opinions expressed above >>>>>>> are those of the author, not of >>>>>>> any organizations, associated >>>>>>> with or related to him in >>>>>>> any given way. >>>>>>> *** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> == Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are >>>>>>> caused by the touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the >>>>>>> reason for using short words and phrases. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account >>>>>>> menu. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Veni >>>>>>> http://veni.com >>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski >>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *** >>>>>>> The opinions expressed above >>>>>>> are those of the author, not of >>>>>>> any organizations, associated >>>>>>> with or related to him in >>>>>>> any given way. >>>>>>> *** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> == Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by the touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the reason for using short words and phrases. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >> https://portal.isoc.org/ >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From dave at difference.com.au Mon Mar 9 04:16:17 2015 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> On 5 Mar 2015, at 5:21 pm, parminder wrote: > > > On Thursday 05 March 2015 02:05 PM, David Cake wrote: >> >> On 5 Mar 2015, at 12:39 am, parminder wrote: >>> .The fact that some 'civil society' persons sided with US and its allies (who as the key power-holders in the global IG realm have their obvious reasons) to do so indeed makes it a sad day for public interest advocacy.... parminder >> >> I really find some civil society persons siding with Russia and the KSA on some issues to be a bigger long term concern for support of democracy within civil society, but perhaps that is just me. > > David, I am more that ready for an honest debate, but here you are cutting some part of an email and making an unconnected case out of it. The main point in my email was not 'siding with US' but 'siding with US to resist inclusion of 'democracy' in the UNESCO document', which I indeed consider nothing less than scandalous . Now, on the 'democracy' part, if you have any views please share them, and if any questions, I am happy to answer. Sure. Leaving aside the symbolic value of democracy as a word, much of the debate here seems to be about the practical implications of including it as a descriptor of multi-stakeholder processes. What practical differences to the governance of Internet governance institutions, current or potential, do you believe would be made by the inclusion of the word democratic? I’d be interested to hear either positive (properties such institutions should have) or negative (properties they should not have). If this is merely a debate about the form of words, then I don’t think could be considered that scandalous. Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. > I do not know what and whom you refer to in talking about siding with Russia (will you like to be explicit). Meanwhile, I will greatly protest anyone siding with Russia to condone, say violence against journalists, or arbitrarily shutting down websites - both of which happen a lot in Russia. Certainly. Russia is a terrible nation for free press, has used DDOS and other similar tactics for suppression of political speech in the past, and also practices shutdowns. It is also worth noting, given the apparent JNC drive for CS groups to disclose funding that in my cases it would cause significant problems for CS organisations operating in Russia, given that Russia has passed laws characterising CS organisations that receive foreign funding as ‘foreign agents' (though Russia is also increasingly a source of CS funding for causes like anti-abortion and anti-LGBT campaigns). > However, Id be happy to side with Russia to resist US and its corporation's hegemony over the global Internet. In which way do you think that this would NOT increase the influence of relatively un-democratic nations such as Russia and China? In which way do you think reducing the influence of the US would not amount to less influence of a democratic power? FWIW, I’m all for decreasing the direct power of the US, and enthusiastically support the IANA transition and removing other ‘special roles’ of the US moving forward - but the JNC position seems to strongly advocate reduction of the soft power of the US and its allies as well, which in the current geopolitical climate inevitably means increasing the influence of authoritarian governments. I remain somewhat confused about the extreme JNC hostility to US soft power. > Similarly, I'd very happily side with US on spreading globally its new found enthusiasm for net neutrality and community broadband as national level best practices. Indeed, we are in agreement there. David > > parminder >> >> Regards >> >> David >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Sent: March 4, 2015 7:42 AM >>>> To: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Cc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC; Nnenna Nwakanma; >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>>> >>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>> You’re right, but you can nevertheless thank UNESCO for the opportunity to participate on a multi-stakeholder basis and acknowledge that the outcome document is a lot richer than it would otherwise have been because of this. >>>> >>>> Also, please clarify that the Just Net Coalition does NOT represent all of civil society. This given that Richard Hill on behalf of the coalition has just disrupted the meeting with a formal objection to the document due to its omission to qualify references to multi-stakeholderism with “democratic” (which he incorrectly stated was not objected to during the last drafting session), and its omission to include a reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Other than his objection, the document was adopted by the meeting by consensus. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 :: >>>> >>>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt >>>> >>>> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 >>>> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD >>>> >>>> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide: >>>> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Mar 9 05:15:59 2015 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:15:59 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality in the next Internet In-Reply-To: <54F77EC7.7000905@gmail.com> References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org> <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca> <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com> <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <54F613AC.9020902@gmail.com> <54F77EC7.7000905@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Willi, Do find inset On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:53 PM, willi uebelherr wrote: > > I send my proposal to Netmundial / 1Net entitled "Internet, the > inter-connection of local net-works" along with 3 contributions to the > debate on the lists. Perhaps new members are on these lists who have not > yet read the text. > > All specific answers and the discussion you find in the archive of the > list: > www.1net.org Mailing List Archive > http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/ > You seem to have referenced the whole mailing list. Not sure that would be helpful to someone interested in reading your proposal. > > Only the principles covered in this proposal. Not the questions of, how we > can organize this in material form. > Maybe that is the problem; the principles may not be as helpful in this situation especially as they are written by an individual. Since you wrote the principles, it will be quite logical for you to also provide at least a rough hypothesis of the "HOW" > > In this case something else comes to the foreground. The free technology, > that is free available to all people of our planet and arises from the free > cooperation of free people, who want to participate. > > The free technology rests on "think globally, act locally" and "Knowledge > is always world heritage". We turn not to private or public institutions, > but only to the people directly. No matter where and how they live. > There are quite a number of thinking globally but acting local initiative existing out there...typical examples includes the IXes, RENs, tech Hubs etc. However there is a basic fact - which is that there is always some level of cost associated, so the word "free" is relative and its not something that can be applicable to technology literal manner simply because technology is not a natural resource. Cheers! > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works > Datum: Sun, 04 May 2014 01:00:13 -0600 > Von: willi uebelherr > An: 1net discuss > > Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works > > Dear friends, > > from the final document of NetMundial we can see, that this organization > has no interest to strongly support the self-organization of the people for > their global communication systems. Rather, institutions are installed to > continue the principles of monopolization and representation. > > Now I want to submit my proposal for a real Internet in this discussion > group. > > 1) The local networks > > The Internet is nothing more then the connection of local, independent > networks. They have at least one server, which is connected to the local > router and this router connects to the adjacent networks. > > These local networks have a maximum of sovereignity and independenence, > because they maintain all the necessary resources and functions locally. > These local networks are organized by the local people themselves. > > 2) The inter-connection of local net-works > > The Internet rests on three levels. > > a) connection of the adjacent local networks > b) the regional network of regional centers > c) the global network of regional centers > > The technology is based primarily on directed microwave radio links. The > components are manufactured locally or regionally. > > All types of data are transported. Text, graphics and speech. This > eliminates all separate instances for the data transport. > > The transport capacities are symmetric in principle. Thus, each client > can themselves act as a server. > > 3) The IP address > > The IP address is derived from the geographical position in the world > coordinate system. We use 64-bit for global and 64-bit for local > address. Because the world coordinate system WK84 is distributed > asymmetrically, we should strive for a symmetrical system of > coordinates. Maybe it already exists. > > The routing (geo-routing) is based on the destination address of the > packet relative to the position of the router. From the distance and the > angle wc can easy make the decisions. > > This eliminates all institutions, which deal with the management of > number spaces and routing. There is no Internet governance more. It is > not necessary. > > Conclusions > > This concept rests on the responsibility to all people on our planet. > Only if they can operate at a most independently locally or regionally > level, our global communication system can arise. People are important > and not the institutions. > > It also follows, that we have to manufacture the hardware components > local and regional self. Any form of incapacitation of people by private > or public institutions is terminated. But this is only possible if we > determine the technology itself and organize itself. We do this > according to the principle: Think globally, act locally. > > many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr > Quetzaltenango, Guatemala > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works > Datum: Sun, 04 May 2014 22:37:43 -0600 > Von: willi uebelherr > An: 1net discuss > > Dear friends, > > I am very grateful for the constructive responses. In particular, the > critical questions are important. They force us to organize our thinking > and to substantiate our views. > > In this response, I will deal only with the philosophical basis for my > proposal. Some answers are originated from a different orientation. In a > second response I want to discuss some technical aspects that are > general in nature. Special reviews and questions I want to answer > specifically, as far as I am able. > > The background > > We can distinguish two extremal poles. > a) we support the desire from all people to a free communication > b) we use the communication requirements in order to realize our own > interests. > > To a) I stand and many members of this list. > > To b) stay all those for which the current structures and organizations > are important. Be it to stabilize their jobs or to secure their > livelihood in any other form. But it is also important to organize > governance and to try anything that the people in the regions can not > organize independently. And therefore are not in a position to shape > their communication system itself. As part of the many actors worldwide. > > As in all questions of constructive design also flow into our principles > of the design of our communication systems our philosophical > orientations and ultimately determine our methods. We always have to > deal with limitations in the technical possibilities. But from the > contradiction between target and condition arise the driving forces. > > This also applies to those for which the needs for communication are > only objects for their money-oriented actions. > > In general I formulate the following development principles: > a) massively decentralized > b) massively parallel > c) massively redundant > > From that directly follows that our global communication system rests > on independent local networks. It also follows that the people in the > regions concerned in parallel with the development of technical > components that they need for their communication systems. And it also > follows that the capacity should be well above the maximum demand. > > The current restrictions are primarily the monopolization of knowledge > and a specific concentration of technical infrastructures. But these > restrictions have no inherent legitimacy. They are the result of > constructive design. > > Where the boundaries lie for distributed and parallel development of the > necessary technical components, we do not know. But we know that > diversity is an essential prerequisite for a strong development. > > We are inevitably confronted with the private appropriation of human > knowledge. This is not a problem for me, because for me knowledge is > always world heritage. This eliminates all the justifications for legal > systems to patents and licenses. This is because basically our > individual knowledge rests on the knowledge of our ancestors and > contemporaries. > > Because not the needs of the people to free communication are the > foundation in the technical development of components for communications > systems, but the interests of capital utilization, there are no reasonable > technological systems. Therefore, we can never make the present state of > the technology to the basis of our discussion. > > Communication is always bidirectional. It also follows that we consider > in our technical terminology the client and server as a unit. In our > direct verbal communication, we also do this. Technically that's not a > problem. > > If we treat our connection paths for data transport such as public > roads, which everyone can use, then we immediately see the massive > limitations. Again, there is no technical reason. Always the people in > the local regions make their paths and trails usable for guests. > > Communication takes place primarily locally and regionally. In families, > between friends and colleagues. Therefore, it is natural to organize our > technical communication systems locally and regionally. This eliminates > much of the meaningless data transports. > > I will summarize it briefly. We focus on the needs. We decentralize and > parallelize our activities for the construction of the components for > our global communication systems. We cooperate worldwide. We help each > other worldwide. We can do this because we have the same needs for a > free communication worldwide. > > Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr > Quetzaltenango, Guatemala > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works > Datum: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:41:17 -0600 > Von: willi uebelherr > An: 1net discuss > > Dear friends, > > for the delay in my second reply I beg your pardon. In this response, I > will discuss some basic technical issues that were discussed in some > answers. > > 1) The local responsibility for the whole. > > In money-oriented, capitalist environments there is no responsibility > for the whole. Only the quantum of money-flows are crucial. The fact > that this discussion is about communication is for that actors secondary. > > In user-oriented environments, the whole is always the basis for the > individual. The communication requires the action of at least two > partners. From the interest of a free and unfettered communication for > ourselves necessarily follows the interest in free and unfettered > communication for the other. > > 2) Geographical or virtual location. > > There is no virtual locality. Location is always defined geographically. > Every person may define their own terminology. Whether they however can > enter into a communication depends on the willingness of others. > > From the clear determination of a locality follows the clear > determination of the address of a location. It is the geographical > location. And this is only necessary to transport a data packet as > desired from one location to another. > > 3) Multicasting > > With unique addresses no multicasting is possible. It is not the task of a > transport system for data packets to multiply them. This task will > always have the transmitter. > > However, it is technically very easy to activate in regional and local > node dynamic distribution server, which then multiply a package for > distribution. One example is mail distribution or streaming server. > > 4) Transport types. > > There are only 2 types of transportation. Asynchronous and synchronous. > Due to the time requirements of synchronous packets this are preferred. > They are usually smaller. They are like kids who aspire between the legs > of the adults to the front. Or even like dogs, they will always find a way. > Even with a large storage of adults. > > Within the synchronous packets, we distinguish those for emergency > calls, which are always given preferential treatment. All others have to > wait. > > 5) Server instances > > We do not distinguish between specific clients or servers. Each node can > always be both. If two communication partners have the functionality for > client and server, the packets flow directly from one partner to the other. > Between are just transport nodes. But these are only interested on the IP > header. The content remains closed as in a letter. > > From this symmetry of the operators, the requirement for symmetry of > the transport capacity directly follows. And since each local network > also has a central server node, all those they do not wish to maintain > her own server can outsource their requirements. Because the server > management is not a major technical problem, most end nodes in the > network will evolve to Client/Server instances. > > Central server structures such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail, > Yahoo and any else will dissolve. They are unnecessary. The data remain > decentralized, as they always are. How we make visible the decentralized > distributed data on our client, it is entirely another topic. > > 6) backbones and ISP's. > > Such designs are not necessary for us, because they are technically not > required. In the discussion "African take on Net Neutrality" we can see > with what nonsense people play, because they can not construct her > network. They are fence-sitters that are not allowed to go inside. They > have to stay before the fence and can only use a few doors. > > 7) Transport technologies > > In my proposal I pointed out that today's technical limitations can > never be the basis for this discussion. What methods we use has little > to do with the discussion on principles. It is primarily a question of > rational knowledge. It remains free to continue today's nonsense in the > future. > > We can look at the technologies for data transport as a global community > task. This corresponds to their real content for a global and free > communication system, in which all people in our small world want to be > involved. Or at least most of them. > > 8) Mobile communication partner. > > Each mobile communication device contacts over a local access point to > the global communication system. And this will not change because there > is a physical constraint for it. Thus, each mobile communications > partner have the global address of the local access point. > > Always the same applies to moving equipment. We disconnect and make a > new connection, or vice versa. A simple method. > > 9) The analogy to the street. > > Our transport system for data packets is comparable to the transport > systems on the road. There are community responsibilities because they > are important for communities. > > 10) State, private companies and Comunas. > > In my design, I am guided for the local communities, the Comunas. States > and private companies are not important, because they are not really > necessary. Communication always takes place between people and not between > virtual, not real structures. > > Local communities realy exist. States and companies exist only in the > imagination. That's why I do not concern myself with it. > > The need for worldwide communication exists in reality. It is a basic > need of people to contact each other, share ideas and experiences. So, > if we omit the foreign interests, eliminate their material bases by > making them superfluous, our action spaces are wide open and freely > accessible to go inside. > > A summary. > > In our considerations we need to make the focus to that what we want to > achieve. We disolve all dogmas. If we want a world-wide communication > for all people, then we should also make this the subject of our > thinking. With side scenes, we need not concern ourselves. > > Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr > Jinotepe, Nicaragua > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: Re: [discuss] Internet: the INTER-connection of local NET-works > Datum: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:18:34 -0600 > Von: willi uebelherr > An: discuss at 1net.org > > Dear friends, > > this discussion now focuses on the question: > > Direct or indirect addressing in the Internet? > > But this question we can answer only if we understand the requirements > of the data packet transport properly. > > The transport of data packets is a geographical task because origin and > destination in communication are at different geographical locations. > Otherwise, these questions would not arise. It makes no sense to apply > the methods of internal addressing of CPU's, because it is a completely > different tasks in a completely different environment. > > When we realize what to do in order to transport data packets and what > information is necessary so that the packets even reach their goal, then > it becomes very easy. > > Andrew has taken leave with great speech from this discussion. > > He wrote: > "Today, on the actual Internet we have, if I am the registrant of an IP > address range and I move my data centre from one location to another, I > make a new announcement and everyone can find me automatically". > > Because he does not understand the content of DNS processes, he also > does not know what lies behind the facade of his "announcement". But he > acts as if he would be familiar. > > Meanwhile, we have several examples of supposed experts on this list who > do not understand the contents of that of which they speak. > > JFC Morfin (Jefsey) has disappointed me a little. He knows very well the > history of the Internet, he knows many names. But is this sufficient? If we > do not develop our own criteria, then it is better that we go to the > church. Like small child we can run behind the religious dogmas. Luis > Pouzin put it clearly in his texts to the catenet. Never stand the physical > requirements in the foreground. At that time the project was stopped > because the telecommunication companies of the different state were afraid > of a possible loss of their monopoly position. They prefer the X25 protocol. > > The main forces for indirect addressing in the Internet are government > intelligence agencies and the military authorities; public or private. > And it seems like their needs were always the most important in the last > 40-50 years. There are not helpful many names of famous people. > > Luis Pouzin was also fixed to the indirect addressing. Following of that > was developed such illustrious names such as "Virtual Geo Network". Each > person can build such a virtual network if they want. Even virtual > communities of any kind. But we never allowed to make this nonsense to the > base. > > The same is true for the pseudo-model OSI. Each person can think up to > any models. But models always remain just perceptions. They arise from > the attempt to outline the reality. But the determining factor is the > reality itself and not the idea of reality. > > I can only hope that something more consciousness arises in this circle > about the reality. But based on my experience in so many threads in this > list I have big doubts. At least until the more passive reader > interfere. Then could also Luis Pouzin participate in the discussion. > > The geo-routing come today through the backdoor in again. In dynamic > meshnets of mobile devices without local access points, the geo-routing > has proven to be advantageous. Also a military line of research. > > Even if that is not the issue here. We should think about, how we can > disolve all kinds of military worldwide. Then we have a lot less > problems in our lives. And not only in the internet. > > Many greetings in solidarity, willi uebelherr > Jinotepe, Nicaragua > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Tue Mar 3 13:12:34 2015 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:12:34 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [Tomorrow, 15:00 GMT] Invitation to GCCS2015 Webinar #1 - Cybersecurity and Human Rights Message-ID: Dear friends, *(with apologies for cross-posting)* As part of the effort to facilitate effective civil society engagement in The Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS2015), a tailor-made training program for civil society will be delivered through a series of seven webinars in the run up to the Conference. On behalf of the GCCS2015 Advisory Board , we would like to invite you to join us tomorrow, Wednesday 4th March at 15:00 GMT, the first webinar in this series - "Cybersecurity and Human Rights" - presented by Tim Maurer of New America, Open Technology Institute. To join this webinar,* please register at this **link* after which you will receive details on how to join the session. All webinars in the series will be delivered by experts in the field and will mirror the agenda of the main Conference, allowing participants to gain a wider understanding of the cybersecurity and human rights issues that will be addressed at the Conference. This webinar series has been organised by the GCCS Advisory Board, under the leadership of Tim Maurer and in partnership with the Government of the Netherlands. The webinars will each consist of a 30 minute presentation, followed by a 30 minute Q&A session where participants will be able to interact with the speaker. In this way, this training programme will attempt to maximise civil society engagement in GCCS2015, allowing for more robust and inclusive debate. Please feel free to share this link with your networks. For questions or assistance, please contact us at aditi at gp-digital.org Best wishes, *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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Mar 9 06:36:01 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:36:01 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> References: <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net> <54FC2189.6010000@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <20150309113601.06103a88@quill> On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 13:08:51 +0000 JOSEFSSON Erik wrote: > I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I > think the underlying understanding is congruent with what > Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen recently > gave in New Zealand at http://linux.conf.au/. I point the video to > the part where transparency, participation and non-hierarchical > collaboration is described as conditions that grew out of technical > work on making the internet. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s > > Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of > transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, they > are themselves a social and political program". > > Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet > governance? I would agree that that "social and political program" is certainly a program of Internet governance (or more accurately, Information society governance, since it's broader that just about the Internet). I also happen to largely agree to that set of ideas, and in fact my proposal at WisdomTaskForce.org is in fact to a large extent based on that kind of ideas. However I would insist that there are Internet governance issues which require explicit legislative public policy action in addition to what Eben Moglen describes as the "social and political program" that he is endorsing. For a bit of discussion of this in relation to the issue of mass surveillance, see my blogpost "The Internet Social Forum and a Vision for Actually Achieving The Internet That We Want" at http://sustainability.oriented.systems/isf-vision/ . It isn't clear to me whether from the perspective of Eben Moglen's "social and political program", such democratic legislative action would be seen as appropriate or not. If democratic legislative action to resolve conflicts of interest between the general public and particular interests of corporations, and/or the interests of the surveillance/industrial complex (by resolving these conflicts of interest in favor of the public interest on the basis of human rights) is not accepted as appropriate, then I would not not accept such a "social and political program", nor see it as pro-democratic, no matter what good and desirable aspects it might otherwise have. Greetings, Norbert From nb at bollow.ch Mon Mar 9 06:54:38 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:54:38 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 David Cake wrote: > Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of > the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything > concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in, > presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law enforcement > that governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC > denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation > of what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post about this when it is available. In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org From nb at bollow.ch Mon Mar 9 10:40:39 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 15:40:39 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> Message-ID: <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" wrote: > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the > ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, > periodic elections etc Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is spelled out explicitly. > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR > states that rights can be restricted for the sake of the general > welfare in a democratic society. As the UDHR is not a binding > convention there is no authoritative interpretation of this phrase by > an international human rights body to my knowledge. Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. Greetings, Norbert > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, > the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing > social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar > limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and > examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression > and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 > >David Cake wrote: > > > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of > >> the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything > >> concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in, > >> presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law > >> enforcement that governments have a special role intrinsically by > >> law). JNC denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your > >> interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you > >> discuss would mean. > > > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post > >about this when it is available. > > > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting > >on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the > >context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in > >Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > > >Greetings, > >Norbert > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) > >http://JustNetCoalition.org > > > > From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Mar 9 10:53:26 2015 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:53:26 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fellowship opportunity in FGV Rio de Janeiro Message-ID: Dear all, FGV´s Rio de Janeiro Law School is offering an excellent fellowship opportunity. Researchers working in fields related to regulation and technology can develop their work at the Center for Technology and Society of FGV. Please help to disseminate among your contacts. Best wishes, Marília Fellows in Rio 2015-2016 Fundação Getulio Vargas’ Rio de Janeiro Law School – FGV DIREITO RIO is pleased to announce the second edition of the Fellows in Rio program. The goal of the program is to support a select group of highly qualified doctoral and post-doctoral scholars working in areas related to the School’s research centers. The program seeks to offer economic and intellectual resources to support insightful and promising young legal scholars. The fellows will participate in projects at the school’s research centers, along with developing their own research. They will receive a six-month scholarship, in the amount of R$36,000.00* for doctoral students and R$45,000.00** for doctors. They will also have the opportunity to give short courses to students, and participate in workshops with researchers and professors. In the first edition, FGV Direito Rio received 162 applications, from 24 countries – 99 doctoral students and 62 doctors. Among the candidates were masters and doctors from Brazilian universities such as USP, UNB, UERJ UFPR UFBA, PUC-Rio, PUC-MG, and from international universities, such as Harvard, Yale and NYU (United States), SciencesPo Sorbonne (France), Sapienza, Bocconi and European University Institute (Italy), London School of Economics and Oxford University (England), Hamburg University, Heidelberg and Augsburg (Germany), Tilburg University (Netherlands), Jindal University (India), Universidad Austral (Argentina), among others. Up to eight (8) fellowships will be granted: four (4) for the period between the beginning of August 2015 to the end of December 2015, and four (4) for the period between the beginning of February 2016 to the end of July 2016. The deadline for applications is on April 15th 2015 (check the call for applications for further information). Call for applications: http://direitorio.fgv.br/fellowship-program-for-doctoral-candidates-and-post-doc-researchers -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Mar 9 12:12:19 2015 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 17:12:19 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that language is excellent. On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask yourself: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make people's lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over the form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum? This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with achieving the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something bigger than WSIS, and bigger than technology. I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decade of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word. As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from trade, to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the furthest away from actually benefiting any real people's lives. I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly hope it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost. On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Hi > > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: > > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. > > > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation of 9.1. > > Wolfgang > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow > Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 > "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" > wrote: > >> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR >> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in >> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the >> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, >> periodic elections etc > > Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in > relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not > used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its > government democratic is spelled out explicitly. > >> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR >> states that rights can be restricted for the sake of the general >> welfare in a democratic society. As the UDHR is not a binding >> convention there is no authoritative interpretation of this phrase by >> an international human rights body to my knowledge. > > Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word > "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, > certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights > instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, > Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. > > Greetings, > Norbert > >> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, >> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing >> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar >> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and >> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression >> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : >> >>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 >>> David Cake wrote: >>> >>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of >>>> the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything >>>> concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in, >>>> presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law >>>> enforcement that governments have a special role intrinsically by >>>> law). JNC denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your >>>> interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you >>>> discuss would mean. >>> >>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a >>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post >>> about this when it is available. >>> >>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting >>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the >>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in >>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) >>> http://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 -------------- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Mar 9 11:05:22 2015 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:05:22 +0100 Subject: AW: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation of 9.1. Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" wrote: > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the > ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, > periodic elections etc Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is spelled out explicitly. > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR > states that rights can be restricted for the sake of the general > welfare in a democratic society. As the UDHR is not a binding > convention there is no authoritative interpretation of this phrase by > an international human rights body to my knowledge. Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. Greetings, Norbert > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, > the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing > social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar > limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and > examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression > and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 > >David Cake wrote: > > > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of > >> the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything > >> concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in, > >> presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law > >> enforcement that governments have a special role intrinsically by > >> law). JNC denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your > >> interpretation of what the term democratic in the context you > >> discuss would mean. > > > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post > >about this when it is available. > > > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting > >on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the > >context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in > >Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > > >Greetings, > >Norbert > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) > >http://JustNetCoalition.org > > > > From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Mon Mar 9 07:12:42 2015 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> Message-ID: Dear Nobert, on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, periodic elections etc The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human rights body to my knowledge. However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. Wolfgang Benedek Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 >David Cake wrote: > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of >> the term in descriptions of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything >> concrete, it means retaining a special role for government (in, >> presumably, all situations, not just those areas like law enforcement >> that governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC >> denies that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation >> of what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post about >this when it is available. > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting on >what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the context of >the very interesting way in which this word is used in Article 29 of the >Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >Greetings, >Norbert >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) >http://JustNetCoalition.org > From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Mar 9 13:21:51 2015 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 18:21:51 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Clearly the point is being missed here. "Internet Governance" as a phrase in international policy is a creature of WSIS. On 9 Mar 2015, at 18:15, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Oh well.. There was also the internet ad hoc council pre icann that included Bob Shaw (now retired from ITU) and that first met in Geneva > > That was when ITU had a rather more constructive role to play than it tends to do now (and Bob was responsible for the wsis action like c5 open consultations at ITU Geneva back in 2007-08, I believe a substantial cross section of this caucus was there, all with access to flags) > On March 9, 2015 10:41:29 PM "Bill Woodcock" wrote: > >> >> On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:06, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> The source of all of IG is WSIS. >> >> Uh... How old are you? How do you think the Internet was governed for the 35 years prior to the ITU having heard about it ? >> >> -Bill >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Mon Mar 9 13:52:20 2015 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:52:20 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <2CE0A74D-F1F6-44F6-964D-A4757F64AE75@gmail.com> This list is drifting back into terminology arguments, yet again. Let me pick up a paragraph from Nick's prior post and pose a couple of questions. First, here is his earlier text: > I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decade of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word. So here are the questions: 1. What advances and/or changes in 'Internet governance,' at any level, are likely in the short and medium run to improve the lives of people in terms of their economic and social well-being? 2. What are the institutions well positioned to help make these advances? Do we have adequate institutions to do the job? What is lacking, if anything, in terms of resources, organization, or coordination? 3. Are these the right questions to be asking? What other questions are directly relevant to improving peoples' economic and social well-being? George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Mar 9, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Clearly the point is being missed here. > > "Internet Governance" as a phrase in international policy is a creature of WSIS. > > On 9 Mar 2015, at 18:15, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Oh well.. There was also the internet ad hoc council pre icann that included Bob Shaw (now retired from ITU) and that first met in Geneva >> >> That was when ITU had a rather more constructive role to play than it tends to do now (and Bob was responsible for the wsis action like c5 open consultations at ITU Geneva back in 2007-08, I believe a substantial cross section of this caucus was there, all with access to flags) >> On March 9, 2015 10:41:29 PM "Bill Woodcock" wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 10:06, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> The source of all of IG is WSIS. >>> >>> Uh... How old are you? How do you think the Internet was governed for the 35 years prior to the ITU having heard about it ? >>> >>> -Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 Mon Mar 9 14:27:45 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:27:45 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <013f01d05a96$bd8c7f00$38a57d00$@gmail.com> (This was drafted before I read George's most recent note and I agree that the discussion, hopefully revealing to some, is now getting somewhat repetitious and addressing the questions George poses might be a worthwhile exercise... Nick (and George), you may believe this discussion is just about words but clearly the USG and it's allies with their "redline" position against democracy in Internet Governance, think differently. (If it was just "words" why threaten to walk out if "democracy" is included.) BTW, show of (digital) hands here, how many people think that this discussion is just about "words"? I'm quite prepared to agree to the statement from the NM if only I could understand it... It seems to me that in the crafting of diplo speak they have squared circles and put horns on horses and created unicorns but I'll suspend final judgement until someone does an explication and makes some elaboration on what this formulation might look like in practice. Re: your point about a major objective for the original WSIS was ensuring that the Internet was accessible to and usable by and for the benefit of all (which has now been largely forgotten by the MSists). You may recall my noting that a major failing of the Brazil Net Mundial was its failure to address these issues in any significant way and I attributed this to their failure to in fact be effectively multi-stakeholder i.e. they overlooked (or perhaps systematically excluded) the primary stakeholders in this area, the rural and marginalized populations (and those such as Community Informatics folks) who work with these populations and on their behalf. Re: WB's rather bizarre characterization of this conversation as "bizarre", perhaps this could be explained by the fact that he is evidently the official spokesperson for the 1% WEF ++"s attempted insertion into Internet Governance on behalf of the MSists through the NMI. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: March 9, 2015 9:12 AM To: Governance; Wolfgang Kleinwächter Cc: Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that langu= age is excellent. On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask your= self: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make people's = lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over t= he form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum? This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with achievin= g the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something bigger than WSIS, a= nd bigger than technology.=20 I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of= arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decad= e of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly = bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word. As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from trade= , to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the furthest aw= ay from actually benefiting any real people's lives.=20 I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly hope = it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost. On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinw=E4chter, Wolfgang wrote: > Hi >=20 > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre >wortdsmithin= g discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: >=20 > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: >Internet = governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensur= ing the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, inclu= ding governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical communit= y, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilit= ies of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with referen= ce to the issue under discussion.=20 >=20 >=20 > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao >Paul= o rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation= of 9.1. >=20 > Wolfgang >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert >Bollow > Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang >(wolfgang.benedek at un= i-graz.at) > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing > Ceremony o= f "Connecting the Dots Conference" >=20 > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 > "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" > wrote: >=20 >> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR >> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in >> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the >> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, >> periodic elections etc >=20 > Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in >relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not >used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its >government democratic is spelled out explicitly. >=20 >> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be >> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic >> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no >> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human >> rights body to my knowledge. >=20 > Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word >"democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, >certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights >instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, >Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. >=20 > Greetings, > Norbert >=20 >> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, >>the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing >>social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar >>limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and >>examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression >>and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. >>=20 >> Wolfgang Benedek >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : >>=20 >>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 >>> David Cake wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of >>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means >>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all >>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that >>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies >>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of >>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. >>>=20 >>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a >>>position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post >>>about this when it is available. >>>=20 >>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting >>>on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the >>>context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in >>>Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>=20 >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 >=20 > 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/ >=20 > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 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 iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU/cZjAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00dCUL/0ML8ToXqbm7bxV1QrHoAiUe 770RMhqvq5Pw5YQfbIlXEr5YIm3h8jFFHm3g18rMCLXYj+uUKySEUnjHwQcM10Ck JvWjM5F8IfuFRA5W3rn/q4UOTpmSwTEVTc47bXxzIRSRdorvKPpCOFNEUjV4F1FR YMnUhoSDEOz5PO7+bKMce3nBnWheyYRxYSgesKgQsZqaV4zXXqxzndo7cO1EAGuy ZCGMkLAu+h2UKH+6LBaIJwErL3DpfjItm7wQzK8bzuYqM0DWHQCZ4KcVVLbeNbre kTaF74LxOZPppj9kb9NLO360h6SZS80kGueAxMuRMWhT4nBCrC6rj478IXq948Be mfLNDU/prRSnC1IalqiPBN6kOPiyK0mN09ziSgavkKSN+AgvvOG7dyfSuxnnRMyr fJRkGFFeYr6J2lQX3HsBYFOuxmatWE1hmDRlnIAVSlMJvp/FBYMGKmFsKRu8bqd4 3wKZpWDemj1WfxgkWuHNwNSu6JRs4qBXzUKEkYFdjw== =3UVw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ____________________________________________________________ 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 --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94-- From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com Tue Mar 3 15:03:56 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:03:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality in the next Internet In-Reply-To: <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org> <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca> <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com> <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <54F613AC.9020902@gmail.com> Am 02/03/2015 um 10:25 p.m. schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: > Why do you need cdns? Well, if you want to access say operating system > updates, your email, sports scores etc at about the same speed in > Bolivia as people would be able to in whichever country the cdn was > hosted.. That's where cdns come in handy. > > Ixp? So isps in your area can exchange local traffic and keep it local, > so mutually ensuring fast access for each other's customers to sites > they host. Save on expensive international bandwidth too. > > As for why you need isps, I do hope you want to connect to the Internet. > You need an isp for that, you know. > > Next question please? Hello Suresh (from governance list), you should really read the emails. Then you understand my answer. We don't need this stupid constructions. We need the InterNet, "the interconnection of local networks". But this private networks, that are connected in IXP?s, with the private resource dealers, the ISP's, the private "Content Delivery Networks", a group of parasitic mafia, all this we don't need. We need the InterNet. many greetings, willi La Paz, Bolivia From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Mon Mar 9 14:49:52 2015 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:49:52 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <013f01d05a96$bd8c7f00$38a57d00$@gmail.com> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <013f01d05a96$bd8c7f00$38a57d00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <94E823EA-C610-47C4-BDD8-0A683623F8E9@gmail.com> Mike, I think that it would be more productive to talk about tangible goals that people can recognize as useful in their daily lives, and how to achieve those goals. If we can agree upon those goals, then we might shift to talking about the best means to achieve them. Let me be blunt, Mike. You are a friend and colleague, and I believe that you will take what I say in a constructive manner. For the purposes of this discussion, I couldn't care less whether you agree or disagree with any part of the Sao Paulo statement. I care more about whether you and I agree on goals for progressing the value of the Internet to humanity so that we can then make the transition to talking about how best to achieve them -- and then, I hope, working to achieve them. I mean implementation, and I know that you are no stranger to that. However, if you really want to work toward philosophical and political convergence and get unanimous agreement on the meaning of words as related to the anatomy of political systems, then you will spend another ten years on this list repeating the last ten years of discussion, and anyone really involved in development results will cease to take this discussion seriously if they have not already done so. Since these lists permit freedom of expression, it's your call. George On Mar 9, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > (This was drafted before I read George's most recent note and I agree that > the discussion, hopefully revealing to some, is now getting somewhat > repetitious and addressing the questions George poses might be a worthwhile > exercise... > > Nick (and George), you may believe this discussion is just about words but > clearly the USG and it's allies with their "redline" position against > democracy in Internet Governance, think differently. (If it was just "words" > why threaten to walk out if "democracy" is included.) BTW, show of > (digital) hands here, how many people think that this discussion is just > about "words"? > > I'm quite prepared to agree to the statement from the NM if only I could > understand it... It seems to me that in the crafting of diplo speak they > have squared circles and put horns on horses and created unicorns but I'll > suspend final judgement until someone does an explication and makes some > elaboration on what this formulation might look like in practice. > > Re: your point about a major objective for the original WSIS was ensuring > that the Internet was accessible to and usable by and for the benefit of all > (which has now been largely forgotten by the MSists). You may recall my > noting that a major failing of the Brazil Net Mundial was its failure to > address these issues in any significant way and I attributed this to their > failure to in fact be effectively multi-stakeholder i.e. they overlooked (or > perhaps systematically excluded) the primary stakeholders in this area, the > rural and marginalized populations (and those such as Community Informatics > folks) who work with these populations and on their behalf. > > Re: WB's rather bizarre characterization of this conversation as "bizarre", > perhaps this could be explained by the fact that he is evidently the > official spokesperson for the 1% WEF ++"s attempted insertion into Internet > Governance on behalf of the MSists through the NMI. > > M > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart > Sent: March 9, 2015 9:12 AM > To: Governance; Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Cc: Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: [bestbits] > Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > > --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=iso-8859-1 > > A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that langu= > age is excellent. > > On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask your= > self: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make people's = > lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over t= > he form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum? > > This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with achievin= > g the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something bigger than WSIS, a= > nd bigger than technology.=20 > > I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of= > arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decad= > e of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly = > bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word. > > As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from trade= > , to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the furthest aw= > ay from actually benefiting any real people's lives.=20 > > I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly hope = > it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost. > > On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinw=E4chter, Wolfgang edienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> Hi >> =20 >> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre >> wortdsmithin= > g discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: >> =20 >> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: >> Internet = > governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensur= > ing the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, inclu= > ding governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical communit= > y, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilit= > ies of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with referen= > ce to the issue under discussion.=20 >> =20 >> =20 >> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao >> Paul= > o rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation= > of 9.1. >> =20 >> Wolfgang >> =20 >> =20 >> =20 >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert >> Bollow >> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang >> (wolfgang.benedek at un= > i-graz.at) >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing >> Ceremony o= > f "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> =20 >> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 >> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" >> wrote: >> =20 >>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR >>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in >>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the >>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, >>> periodic elections etc >> =20 >> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in >> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not >> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its >> government democratic is spelled out explicitly. >> =20 >>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be >>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic >>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no >>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human >>> rights body to my knowledge. >> =20 >> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word >> "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, >> certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights >> instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, >> Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. >> =20 >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> =20 >>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, >>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing >>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar >>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and >>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression >>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. >>> =20 >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : >>> =20 >>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 >>>> David Cake wrote: >>>> =20 >>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of >>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means >>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all >>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that >>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies >>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of >>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. >>>> =20 >>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a >>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post >>>> about this when it is available. >>>> =20 >>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting >>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the >>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in >>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> =20 >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org >>>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >> =20 >> =20 >> =20 >> =20 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> =20 >> 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/ >> =20 >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 > 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 > > iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU/cZjAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00dCUL/0ML8ToXqbm7bxV1QrHoAiUe > 770RMhqvq5Pw5YQfbIlXEr5YIm3h8jFFHm3g18rMCLXYj+uUKySEUnjHwQcM10Ck > JvWjM5F8IfuFRA5W3rn/q4UOTpmSwTEVTc47bXxzIRSRdorvKPpCOFNEUjV4F1FR > YMnUhoSDEOz5PO7+bKMce3nBnWheyYRxYSgesKgQsZqaV4zXXqxzndo7cO1EAGuy > ZCGMkLAu+h2UKH+6LBaIJwErL3DpfjItm7wQzK8bzuYqM0DWHQCZ4KcVVLbeNbre > kTaF74LxOZPppj9kb9NLO360h6SZS80kGueAxMuRMWhT4nBCrC6rj478IXq948Be > mfLNDU/prRSnC1IalqiPBN6kOPiyK0mN09ziSgavkKSN+AgvvOG7dyfSuxnnRMyr > fJRkGFFeYr6J2lQX3HsBYFOuxmatWE1hmDRlnIAVSlMJvp/FBYMGKmFsKRu8bqd4 > 3wKZpWDemj1WfxgkWuHNwNSu6JRs4qBXzUKEkYFdjw== > =3UVw > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94-- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Mar 9 15:01:40 2015 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 20:01:40 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <94E823EA-C610-47C4-BDD8-0A683623F8E9@gmail.com> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <013f01d05a96$bd8c7f00$38a57d00$@gmail.com> <94E823EA-C610-47C4-BDD8-0A683623F8E9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <98D13DF8-EFD5-4B85-9690-81BECCAA194E@consensus.pro> Dear George, Thank you for taking what I said in the spirit it was intended. For what it is worth, here are a couple of areas where I think practical multistakeholderism can be used concretely to help "square the circle": 1) In talking to development agencies (both national and international) and also philanthropic organisations from the tech sector it is clear there's a disconnect: these two communities don't routinely work together. It is axiomatic that you can't effectively deliver on sustainable development without all stakeholders working together on shared practical objectives. How can the divide above - which is mirrored at the policy level, where WSIS' development followup via UNGIS etc is very statist - be narrowed? 2) A bit less than half of the world is online, yet these are the easiest to connect - the more that percentage rises the more those who are left are those who are either poor (financially) or living in remote or low population density areas. Given these facts, is there an opportunity for a multi-stakeholder based "Marshall Plan" to bring the stakeholders to the table that are necessary to deal with the obstacles - and marshall the resources - to narrow the gap. A big idea for thought: why not have as a goal of WSIS+10 that we reach 100% connectivity across the human family - affordable in the context of each user - within the next 10 years. I can think of more, but in these two I can see an obvious role for multi-stakeholder-based processes - meaning, that such processes would be indispensable to success. On 9 Mar 2015, at 19:49, George Sadowsky wrote: > Mike, > > I think that it would be more productive to talk about tangible goals that people can recognize as useful in their daily lives, and how to achieve those goals. If we can agree upon those goals, then we might shift to talking about the best means to achieve them. > > Let me be blunt, Mike. You are a friend and colleague, and I believe that you will take what I say in a constructive manner. For the purposes of this discussion, I couldn't care less whether you agree or disagree with any part of the Sao Paulo statement. I care more about whether you and I agree on goals for progressing the value of the Internet to humanity so that we can then make the transition to talking about how best to achieve them -- and then, I hope, working to achieve them. I mean implementation, and I know that you are no stranger to that. > > However, if you really want to work toward philosophical and political convergence and get unanimous agreement on the meaning of words as related to the anatomy of political systems, then you will spend another ten years on this list repeating the last ten years of discussion, and anyone really involved in development results will cease to take this discussion seriously if they have not already done so. Since these lists permit freedom of expression, it's your call. > > George > > > On Mar 9, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> (This was drafted before I read George's most recent note and I agree that >> the discussion, hopefully revealing to some, is now getting somewhat >> repetitious and addressing the questions George poses might be a worthwhile >> exercise... >> >> Nick (and George), you may believe this discussion is just about words but >> clearly the USG and it's allies with their "redline" position against >> democracy in Internet Governance, think differently. (If it was just "words" >> why threaten to walk out if "democracy" is included.) BTW, show of >> (digital) hands here, how many people think that this discussion is just >> about "words"? >> >> I'm quite prepared to agree to the statement from the NM if only I could >> understand it... It seems to me that in the crafting of diplo speak they >> have squared circles and put horns on horses and created unicorns but I'll >> suspend final judgement until someone does an explication and makes some >> elaboration on what this formulation might look like in practice. >> >> Re: your point about a major objective for the original WSIS was ensuring >> that the Internet was accessible to and usable by and for the benefit of all >> (which has now been largely forgotten by the MSists). You may recall my >> noting that a major failing of the Brazil Net Mundial was its failure to >> address these issues in any significant way and I attributed this to their >> failure to in fact be effectively multi-stakeholder i.e. they overlooked (or >> perhaps systematically excluded) the primary stakeholders in this area, the >> rural and marginalized populations (and those such as Community Informatics >> folks) who work with these populations and on their behalf. >> >> Re: WB's rather bizarre characterization of this conversation as "bizarre", >> perhaps this could be explained by the fact that he is evidently the >> official spokesperson for the 1% WEF ++"s attempted insertion into Internet >> Governance on behalf of the MSists through the NMI. >> >> M >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart >> Sent: March 9, 2015 9:12 AM >> To: Governance; Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> Cc: Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at; >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: [bestbits] >> Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> >> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset=iso-8859-1 >> >> A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that langu= >> age is excellent. >> >> On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask your= >> self: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make people's = >> lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over t= >> he form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum? >> >> This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with achievin= >> g the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something bigger than WSIS, a= >> nd bigger than technology.=20 >> >> I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great deal of= >> arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure the next decad= >> e of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of real people and truly = >> bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word. >> >> As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from trade= >> , to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the furthest aw= >> ay from actually benefiting any real people's lives.=20 >> >> I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly hope = >> it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost. >> >> On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinw=E4chter, Wolfgang > edienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> =20 >>> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre >>> wortdsmithin= >> g discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: >>> =20 >>> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: >>> Internet = >> governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, ensur= >> ing the meaningful and accountable participation of all stakeholders, inclu= >> ding governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical communit= >> y, the academic community and users. The respective roles and responsibilit= >> ies of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with referen= >> ce to the issue under discussion.=20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao >>> Paul= >> o rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation= >> of 9.1. >>> =20 >>> Wolfgang >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert >>> Bollow >>> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 >>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang >>> (wolfgang.benedek at un= >> i-graz.at) >>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing >>> Ceremony o= >> f "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>> =20 >>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 >>> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" >>> wrote: >>> =20 >>>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR >>>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in >>>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the >>>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, >>>> periodic elections etc >>> =20 >>> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in >>> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not >>> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and its >>> government democratic is spelled out explicitly. >>> =20 >>>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be >>>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic >>>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no >>>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human >>>> rights body to my knowledge. >>> =20 >>> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word >>> "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, >>> certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights >>> instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, >>> Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. >>> =20 >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> =20 >>>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, >>>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing >>>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar >>>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and >>>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression >>>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. >>>> =20 >>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : >>>> =20 >>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 >>>>> David Cake wrote: >>>>> =20 >>>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of >>>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means >>>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all >>>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that >>>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies >>>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of >>>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. >>>>> =20 >>>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a >>>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post >>>>> about this when it is available. >>>>> =20 >>>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting >>>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the >>>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in >>>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>> =20 >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org >>>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> =20 >>> 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/ >>> =20 >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 >> 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 >> >> iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU/cZjAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00dCUL/0ML8ToXqbm7bxV1QrHoAiUe >> 770RMhqvq5Pw5YQfbIlXEr5YIm3h8jFFHm3g18rMCLXYj+uUKySEUnjHwQcM10Ck >> JvWjM5F8IfuFRA5W3rn/q4UOTpmSwTEVTc47bXxzIRSRdorvKPpCOFNEUjV4F1FR >> YMnUhoSDEOz5PO7+bKMce3nBnWheyYRxYSgesKgQsZqaV4zXXqxzndo7cO1EAGuy >> ZCGMkLAu+h2UKH+6LBaIJwErL3DpfjItm7wQzK8bzuYqM0DWHQCZ4KcVVLbeNbre >> kTaF74LxOZPppj9kb9NLO360h6SZS80kGueAxMuRMWhT4nBCrC6rj478IXq948Be >> mfLNDU/prRSnC1IalqiPBN6kOPiyK0mN09ziSgavkKSN+AgvvOG7dyfSuxnnRMyr >> fJRkGFFeYr6J2lQX3HsBYFOuxmatWE1hmDRlnIAVSlMJvp/FBYMGKmFsKRu8bqd4 >> 3wKZpWDemj1WfxgkWuHNwNSu6JRs4qBXzUKEkYFdjw== >> =3UVw >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >> Content-Disposition: inline >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94-- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 9 15:07:13 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:07:13 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <913b339f958249ddb0e2cbe52f0c7745@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> >Clearly the point is being missed here. > >"Internet Governance" as a phrase in international policy is a creature of WSIS. I would disagree with that, Nick. The ICANN/DNS root debates, known as 'Internet governance" debates at the time, preceded WSIS by 6-7 years, and actually involved the ITU from about 1996 (as Suresh has intimated). In fact WSIS represented little more than many of the world's governments waking up to the fact that the Internet existed, was important, and that a new set of private sector-led institutions had been created that they had a very diminished role in. It was literally a reactionary event. My book on these early battles (Ruling the root), published in 2002 and written before WSIS, used the term "internet governance" in the title and everyone knew what it meant. True, WSIS politicized Internet governance more than it had been and attempted to bring it into the multilateral system, but that is not the same as saying that the topic and controversy was a "creature" of WSIS. WSIS actually started as an attempt to promote telecom infrastructure development; ICANN and IG were unintended and emergent agenda items as it developed. That history is recounted in Networks and States (2010). In terms of whose lives we are helping, it's an unfortunate fact of reality that people who build things and make them work at some stage of the game have to deal with forces and people from the political realm who want to control them or feel threatened by what they do. Thus, simply fending off these efforts can help a lot of lives. --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Mar 9 15:14:31 2015 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 20:14:31 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <913b339f958249ddb0e2cbe52f0c7745@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <14bff88b7c8.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <913b339f958249ddb0e2cbe52f0c7745@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: How about this. Could we all assume that the phrase: "the source of all of IG is WSIS" Does not appear in my comment? It is completely, entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. I wish I had instead said: "On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask yourself: WSIS' goal was and is the use of technology to make people's lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this hostility over the form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum?" Again, I thank George once again for realising what the main point was. Regards, Nick On 9 Mar 2015, at 20:07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >Clearly the point is being missed here. > > > >"Internet Governance" as a phrase in international policy is a creature of WSIS. > > I would disagree with that, Nick. The ICANN/DNS root debates, known as ‘Internet governance” debates at the time, preceded WSIS by 6-7 years, and actually involved the ITU from about 1996 (as Suresh has intimated). In fact WSIS represented little more than many of the world’s governments waking up to the fact that the Internet existed, was important, and that a new set of private sector-led institutions had been created that they had a very diminished role in. It was literally a reactionary event. > > My book on these early battles (Ruling the root), published in 2002 and written before WSIS, used the term “internet governance” in the title and everyone knew what it meant. True, WSIS politicized Internet governance more than it had been and attempted to bring it into the multilateral system, but that is not the same as saying that the topic and controversy was a “creature” of WSIS. > > WSIS actually started as an attempt to promote telecom infrastructure development; ICANN and IG were unintended and emergent agenda items as it developed. That history is recounted in Networks and States (2010). > > In terms of whose lives we are helping, it’s an unfortunate fact of reality that people who build things and make them work at some stage of the game have to deal with forces and people from the political realm who want to control them or feel threatened by what they do. Thus, simply fending off these efforts can help a lot of lives. > > --MM -------------- 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 9 15:34:45 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:34:45 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Wolfgang Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental. I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more. As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment. Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government. None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples. Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things: A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony > of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > Hi > > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing > discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: > > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: > Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder > processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all > stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the > technical community, the academic community and users. The respective > roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible > manner with reference to the issue under discussion. > > > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo > rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation > of 9.1. > > Wolfgang > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow > Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang > (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of > "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 > "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" > wrote: > > > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR > > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in > > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the > > ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, > > periodic elections etc > > Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to > governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a > very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is > spelled out explicitly. > > > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be > > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic > > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no > > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human > > rights body to my knowledge. > > Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic" > occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same > meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are > some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, > > the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing > > social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar > > limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and > > examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression > > and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : > > > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 > > >David Cake wrote: > > > > > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of > > >> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means > > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all > > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that > > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies > > >> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of > > >> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. > > > > > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a > > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post > > >about this when it is available. > > > > > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting > > >on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the > > >context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in > > >Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > > > > >Greetings, > > >Norbert > > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org > > > > > > > > > > From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Mar 9 16:01:53 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:01:53 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <94E823EA-C610-47C4-BDD8-0A683623F8E9@gmail.com> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46759C61-CD20-476E-9D77-147D4DC80EAF@consensus.pro> <013f01d05a96$bd8c7f00$38a57d00$@gmail.com> <94E823EA-C610-47C4-BDD8-0A683623F8E9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <021601d05aa3$e3db17e0$ab9147a0$@gmail.com> Hi George, While I agree with where you are going with the below and I'll respond inline, anyone who doesn't think that words matter need only look at the effect of the US Supreme Court in re-interpreting, (in Citizen’s United) what was it, three words in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which evidently has had the effect of turning what was a haltingly functioning democracy into a more or less completely dysfunctional oligarchy. But I guess that anyone who could or would learn from this discussion has already done so and yes, we should probably push on... -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: March 9, 2015 11:50 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" Mike, I think that it would be more productive to talk about tangible goals that people can recognize as useful in their daily lives, and how to achieve those goals. If we can agree upon those goals, then we might shift to talking about the best means to achieve them. [MG] I agree Let me be blunt, Mike. You are a friend and colleague, and I believe that you will take what I say in a constructive manner. For the purposes of this discussion, I couldn't care less whether you agree or disagree with any part of the Sao Paulo statement. I care more about whether you and I agree on goals for progressing the value of the Internet to humanity so that we can then make the transition to talking about how best to achieve them -- and then, I hope, working to achieve them. I mean implementation, and I know that you are no stranger to that. [MG] agree again However, if you really want to work toward philosophical and political convergence and get unanimous agreement on the meaning of words as related to the anatomy of political systems, then you will spend another ten years on this list repeating the last ten years of discussion, and anyone really involved in development results will cease to take this discussion seriously if they have not already done so. Since these lists permit freedom of expression, it's your call. [MG] agree again... a trifecta...now where to :) Mike George On Mar 9, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Michael Gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > (This was drafted before I read George's most recent note and I agree > that the discussion, hopefully revealing to some, is now getting > somewhat repetitious and addressing the questions George poses might > be a worthwhile exercise... > > Nick (and George), you may believe this discussion is just about words > but clearly the USG and it's allies with their "redline" position > against democracy in Internet Governance, think differently. (If it was just "words" > why threaten to walk out if "democracy" is included.) BTW, show of > (digital) hands here, how many people think that this discussion is > just about "words"? > > I'm quite prepared to agree to the statement from the NM if only I > could understand it... It seems to me that in the crafting of diplo > speak they have squared circles and put horns on horses and created > unicorns but I'll suspend final judgement until someone does an > explication and makes some elaboration on what this formulation might look like in practice. > > Re: your point about a major objective for the original WSIS was > ensuring that the Internet was accessible to and usable by and for the > benefit of all (which has now been largely forgotten by the MSists). > You may recall my noting that a major failing of the Brazil Net > Mundial was its failure to address these issues in any significant way > and I attributed this to their failure to in fact be effectively > multi-stakeholder i.e. they overlooked (or perhaps systematically > excluded) the primary stakeholders in this area, the rural and > marginalized populations (and those such as Community Informatics > folks) who work with these populations and on their behalf. > > Re: WB's rather bizarre characterization of this conversation as > "bizarre", perhaps this could be explained by the fact that he is > evidently the official spokesperson for the 1% WEF ++"s attempted > insertion into Internet Governance on behalf of the MSists through the NMI. > > M > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick > Ashton-Hart > Sent: March 9, 2015 9:12 AM > To: Governance; Wolfgang Kleinwächter > Cc: Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at; > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [governance] Whose lives are we helping, anyway? WAS Re: > [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > > --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=iso-8859-1 > > A wise intervention. Even if people don't agree with NMI I think that > langu= age is excellent. > > On a larger point, I have to ask - plead, really - for everyone to ask > your= > self: the source of all of IG is WSIS, which was intended to make > people's = lives better and close the digital divide etc. Is all this > hostility over t= he form of words at one meeting leading anywhere on that continuum? > > This is the year when it is possible to connect WSIS' targets with > achievin= g the SDGs - and in doing so become a part of something > bigger than WSIS, a= nd bigger than technology.=20 > > I beg you all - think about the bigger picture. I have seen a great > deal of= arguing over words but almost no debate about how to ensure > the next decad= e of WSIS is more focussed on improving the lives of > real people and truly = bridging the digital divide - in every sense of the word. > > As someone who sits through international meetings across silos, from > trade= , to IG to human rights to development - IG discussions are the > furthest aw= ay from actually benefiting any real people's lives.=20 > > I would love to someday be able to say the opposite is true. I dearly > hope = it is this year - otherwise, a once-in-a-decade opportunity is lost. > > On 9 Mar 2015, at 16:05, Kleinw=E4chter, Wolfgang > < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at m= edienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> Hi >> =20 >> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre >> wortdsmithin= > g discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: >> =20 >> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: >> Internet = > governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder processes, > ensur= ing the meaningful and accountable participation of all > stakeholders, inclu= ding governments, the private sector, civil > society, the technical communit= y, the academic community and users. > The respective roles and responsibilit= ies of stakeholders should be > interpreted in a flexible manner with referen= ce to the issue under > discussion.=20 >> =20 >> =20 >> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao >> Paul= > o rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the > implementation= of 9.1. >> =20 >> Wolfgang >> =20 >> =20 >> =20 >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert >> Bollow >> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang >> ( wolfgang.benedek at un= > i-graz.at) >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing >> Ceremony o= > f "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> =20 >> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 >> "Benedek, Wolfgang ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" >> < wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote: >> =20 >>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR >>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in >>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the >>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, >>> periodic elections etc >> =20 >> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in >> relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not >> used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and >> its government democratic is spelled out explicitly. >> =20 >>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be >>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic >>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no >>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international >>> human rights body to my knowledge. >> =20 >> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word >> "democratic" occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, >> certainly with the same meaning) is also in binding human rights >> instruments. In particular, here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, >> Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. >> =20 >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> =20 >>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, >>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing >>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the >>> similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More >>> and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of >>> Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. >>> =20 >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter < nb at bollow.ch>: >>> =20 >>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 >>>> David Cake < dave at difference.com.au> wrote: >>>> =20 >>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of >>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means >>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all >>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that >>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies >>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of >>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. >>>> =20 >>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a >>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post >>>> about this when it is available. >>>> =20 >>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in >>>> reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" >>>> in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is >>>> used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> =20 >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org >>>> =20 >>> =20 >>> =20 >> =20 >> =20 >> =20 >> =20 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> =20 >> 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/ >> =20 >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 > 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 > > iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU/cZjAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00dCUL/0ML8ToXqbm7bxV1QrHoAiUe > 770RMhqvq5Pw5YQfbIlXEr5YIm3h8jFFHm3g18rMCLXYj+uUKySEUnjHwQcM10Ck > JvWjM5F8IfuFRA5W3rn/q4UOTpmSwTEVTc47bXxzIRSRdorvKPpCOFNEUjV4F1FR > YMnUhoSDEOz5PO7+bKMce3nBnWheyYRxYSgesKgQsZqaV4zXXqxzndo7cO1EAGuy > ZCGMkLAu+h2UKH+6LBaIJwErL3DpfjItm7wQzK8bzuYqM0DWHQCZ4KcVVLbeNbre > kTaF74LxOZPppj9kb9NLO360h6SZS80kGueAxMuRMWhT4nBCrC6rj478IXq948Be > mfLNDU/prRSnC1IalqiPBN6kOPiyK0mN09ziSgavkKSN+AgvvOG7dyfSuxnnRMyr > fJRkGFFeYr6J2lQX3HsBYFOuxmatWE1hmDRlnIAVSlMJvp/FBYMGKmFsKRu8bqd4 > 3wKZpWDemj1WfxgkWuHNwNSu6JRs4qBXzUKEkYFdjw== > =3UVw > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > --Apple-Mail=_2EDBA706-B8BF-416F-B311-331A24B1CB94-- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Mon Mar 9 16:33:39 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:33:39 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <023a01d05aa8$54475170$fcd5f450$@gmail.com> As it happens I agree with quite a lot of what Milton says below but the issues emerge from what he doesn't say... Certainly, current modalities of democratic governance don't easily translate into the global sphere and certainly there are significant challenges at all levels--conceptual, practical, logistical, operational in developing a functional democratic governance for the Internet and overall for our increasingly globalized set of dilemmas and policy requirements. What he doesn't say is that "democracy" is as much or more of an aspiration and a direction--a normative foundation for how one works to respond to those challenges. In that context MSism is a competitive set of norms and practices -- one which seeks to put the ultimate power for decision making not, as in "democracy", "in the hand of the people", but rather wishes to reserve that power for self-identified elites, those who are in control of the existing status quo. I certainly wouldn't and I don't think the JNC would overall suggest that I/we had definitive solutions here but we do know that the quite visible attempt to impose a MSist solution without any broad based and inclusive consultation, without a clear articulation of what MSism means, of how it might operate in practice (note there has been no answer to my repeated requests for a response to the quite specific examples existing MS practical implementations to which I pointed) is not the way to go. I've said this before and I'll repeat this (and hopefully as George/Nick are suggesting we can move on) people of good will should be spending their efforts on trying to figure out how to achieve a governance of the Internet that serves the interests and provides benefits to all, that enhances the capacity for individual and communal self-governance and empowerment, that supports personal liberties and social justice. The attempt by power and wealth to seize control of the Internet via MSism for their own purposes and aided and abetted by collaborators in academic, "civil society" and elsewhere is something that must be resisted. I have no doubt that a truly functional system of Internet Governance that was serving the public good would be one which included a significant degree of multistakeholder input and involvement, it would be ridiculous to say otherwise; but to insist as so many here (and elsewhere) are doing, that the fundamental structures of global (Internet) governance should be MS in form is to deny the dignity of all for the benefit of the few. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: March 9, 2015 12:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" Wolfgang Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental. I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more. As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment. Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government. None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples. Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things: A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > Hi > > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre > wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: > > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: > Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder > processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of > all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil > society, the technical community, the academic community and users. > The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be > interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. > > > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao > Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the > implementation of 9.1. > > Wolfgang > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert > Bollow > Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang > (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 > "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" > wrote: > > > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR > > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in > > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the > > ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, > > periodic elections etc > > Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in > relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not > used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and > its government democratic is spelled out explicitly. > > > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be > > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic > > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no > > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international > > human rights body to my knowledge. > > Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic" > occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the > same > meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, > here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, > > the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing > > social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the > > similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More > > and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of > > Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : > > > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 > > >David Cake wrote: > > > > > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions > > >> of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means > > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all > > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that > > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies > > >> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of > > >> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. > > > > > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a > > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post > > >about this when it is available. > > > > > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in > > >reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" > > >in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is > > >used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > > > > >Greetings, > > >Norbert > > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org > > > > > > > > > > From nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com Mon Mar 9 20:18:11 2015 From: nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com (nathalie coupet) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:18:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [bestbits] [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality in the next Internet In-Reply-To: <21758.10718.479914.554364@world.std.com> References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B0612C0BE@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <54ED3B48.4000106@di.unipi.it> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B0612FFFB@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <80D52C4BA93E6544BF778F54AC3DE01F4162AA9B23@CRPMBOXPRD09.polycom.com> <54EF58BB.6060801@firsthand.net> <54EF917E.6010706@imagicity.com> <004301d0526f$0db6ddc0$29249940$@ch> <54F06331.9050007@veni.com> <54F0F395.4050005@gih.com> <4AF53A50-9778-4AAE-B753-95FB73541FCE@frobbit.se> <54F1835A.8020601@gih.com> <00d701d0534c$85b3d700$911b8500$@ch> <54F1AEEE.4040900@meetinghouse.net> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli nk.ca> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <50FF5DFD-2DE4-4B46-A900-EEF891B78635@difference.com.au> <21758.10718.479914.554364@world.std.com> Message-ID: <1834053637.1429508.1425946692009.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> I stand corrected. Nathalie  From: Barry Shein To: David Cake Cc: nathalie coupet ; Christian de Larrinaga ; Brian E. Carpenter ; 1Net List ; Best Bits ; internetpolicy Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 7:16 PM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality in the next Internet First, the name is not "Van Johansen", it is "Van Jacobson", I know Van, he is very smart and has made great contributions to the development of networking technology. He deserves to have his name right! The architecture being discussed is described here:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking where they call it "Named Data Networking". The basic idea is straightforward enough: Currently you access information on the internet by identifying its location, usually indirectly. Ultimately that location is identifed by an IP address such as 192.74.137.5. *** IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN NOW SKIP FROM HERE **** We usually don't use those directly so instead we might start with a domain name such as www.TheWorld.com which DNS translates to that IP address. Or a URI such as http://www.TheWorld.com (possibly with further qualification.) As a further indirection we might discover that is what we want via a search engine or link in another document but nonetheless the goal is that IP address no matter how many levels of indirection it takes to arrive there. At a lower level, once identified (located), our packets are routed to that IP address probably passing through one or more routers. That is how the internet works currently, in brief other than how routing itself works. *** TO HERE **** IN THE PROPOSED scheme, Named Data Networking: A unit of information, say an online book or movie, is identified not by its location but by its content in some way. *** YOU MIGHT BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL *** *** OR YOU CAN SKIP TO HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN *** So, for example, if I wanted to watch "Gone With The Wind" rather than somehow (which is key!) discovering that I can watch it via the Netflix service and locating netflix.com, etc I would simply say something like "movie:gone with the wind" because that would be how it is stored. At some low level its location still has to be identified but I think the key concept is that I, as the consumer, have not identified that location (e.g., netflix.com). I only identified what it is I want, that movie (or book, etc.) So in the proposed scheme you remove (or supplement) the interface everyone currently uses -- namely chasing down and identifying the location of data -- which is done, ultimately, via IP address (and routing to/from that address) and identify what you want only by its content. That is, again, rather than netflix.com and so forth you would only say something like "move:gone with the wind" and let the mechanics of the system get that for you. You can read the wikipedia page for more detail. The devil is certainly in the details of how this might be implemented and used. *** AS PROMISED: HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN *** It's not really like a CDN because CDNs are still answering requests for data identified by location, they just are serving as a short-circuit. ** YOU MIGHT REALLY BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL *** That is, rather than proceeding to that location the CDN's nodes intervene and respond with the location's content. So if I want CNN's front page I say http://www.cnn.com and the CDN intercepts that and says "here it is!" without my request having to actually travel all the way to wherever CNN's servers lie. But in a CDN you're still identifying content in terms of its location. As an extreme example if for some reason (e.g., hijacking!) CNN's front page had only a copy of Gone With The Wind that's what the CDN would hand you. The CDN has no inherent understanding that you requested that location because you wanted to see news headlines, you never said that, it was only implied because you happen to know www.cnn.com should contain news headlines. The CDN only knows you requested whatever is at www.cnn.com, a location, and handed you its contents presumably from a closer (network-wise) location in the hope that is faster and reduces traffic across the internet's backbone and the remote CNN servers. But you will get whatever is at that location you named, you don't indicate what you want. *** EVERYTHING BELOW IS JUST QUOTED TEXT FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGES *** *** AN ANNOYING CUSTOM ON THESE LISTS BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT TO *** *** INCORPORATE PREVIOUS MESSAGE TEXT ONLY BY REFERENCE! *** From: David Cake >Is it just me, or does this just sound like a very mild generalisation of t= >he idea of CDNs like Akamai (similar services provided through Amazons AWS)= >? A concept already in use by most large internet media providers? > >It does interact with net neutrality policy in some ways. A lot of the netw= >ork neutrality debate can get into detailed discussion of when it is approp= >riate for an ISP to charge for bandwidth, and if some bandwidth providers a= >re heavily buffered this can make a difference (especially in situations wh= >ere some hops, such as international links, are much more expensive to prov= >ide). > >Cheers > >David > >On 3 Mar 2015, at 12:02 am, nathalie coupet wrot= >e: > >> According to Van Johansen (Slow-start algorythm), the Internet should cha= >nge from a ''conversational" architecture with connections between two node= >s at a time, to a content-based architecture that would use the memory stor= >ed in the infrastructure through leveraging the existing buffering occurrin= >g at each hop, in order to send content to a very great number of addresses= > at the same time. >> Thus, Netflix would be able to send its content to great number of househ= >olds not from a single address point, but from everywhere to everywhere. >>=20 >> Could someone explain in more detail exactly to what buffering he is refe= >rring to, and how it would affect Net Neutrality? >>=20 >> Thanks, >>=20 >> Nathalie >>=20 >> From: Gary Kenward >> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >> Cc: internetpolicy >> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 10:19 AM >> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be defined neutrally >>=20 >> Having worked with those telcos on Internet service models I can assure y= >ou that their goal is to maximize their return on investment. And their pri= >mary objective is to move up the food chain and become application service = >and content providers (e.g. Crave.tv). >>=20 >> To be clear, for me working with the telecom industry was not a generally= > satisfying experience. I still cannot get over the fact that we can delive= >r Mordecai on-demand to a large number of house-holds, not to mention pictu= >res of cats, food,...while our first responders have to deal with 20+ year = >old communications technology. >>=20 >>=20 >> Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose. >>=20 >> The information contained in this document is private and confidential. T= >his document is not to >> be copied, printed or re-distributed without the explicit permission of t= >he author. >>=20 >> On Mar 1, 2015, at 05:34, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>=20 >>> The other thing that strikes me from the later part of this thread about= > business models is this: >>>=20 >>> To what extent would the large telcos who don't like the FCC's NN decisi= >on change their view if they weren't for-profit companies? >>>=20 >>> You would have to imagine that at least some of the very strong oppositi= >on from the Verizons and AT&Ts are because they want to maximise return, an= >d charging services for priority is another way to maximise return. >>>=20 >>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Miles Fidelman wr= >ote: >>>=20 >>>> At least in the states, there are lots of examples of very well run mun= >icipal electric utilities (about 18% cheaper on average, too), and that's w= >ho's branching into telecom - they need the data nets for SCADA and meterin= >g and such, and once you start putting people on poles to run wires.... Abo= >ut the only places you can get gigE FTTH in the states, are from a small nu= >mber of munis. Munis are also a very far cry from utilities run by a nation= >al government. >>>>=20 >>>> The problem with telecom, as with most utilities, comes down to right-o= >f-ways -- there's a real first-mover advantage, after you've got pole space= > and buildout, it's very hard for competition to move in. >>>>=20 >>>> Gary W Kenward wrote: >>>>> I agree that monopolies are bad, for all market sectors. >>>>>=20 >>>>> However, I still remember how bad the state run telephone services wer= >e in Canada and Europe, and I haven=92t seen anything that would suggest to= >day=92s governments would do any better in providing packet carrier service= >s, particularly at the municipal level. >>>>>=20 >>>>> The right approach is to begin with a revitalization of fair competiti= >on laws. >>>>>=20 >>>>> G >>>>> */ >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> /* >>>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. >>>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PE= >RMISSION OF ADROIT TECHNOLOGIC. >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 2015.02.28, at 09:30, Miles Fidelman ailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> It's called municipal broadband. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Seriously - private, monoploy (or duopoly) utilities is just a bad mo= >del. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Miles Fidelman >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>>>> It seems to me there's a good argument for cooperative and not-for-p= >rofit models for ISPs. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 13:54, Veni Markovski @veni.com> > wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> By the way , when my company was investing in development and build= >ing our own network in Bulgaria, the price of fiber and cat-5 cables was ve= >ry high. Yet we did it, and provided affordable internet for all. But we di= >dn't have shareholders to ask us to cut expenses and increase profits... >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, ac5jw . lto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com> > wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  This reminds me of the earlier times when we had that issue of >>>>>>>>  who paid for telephone calls. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  The conflict was that people who received telephone calls on >>>>>>>>  their mobile devices would get billed and charged for minutes and >>>>>>>>  for money when they received calls that they were unable to give >>>>>>>>  informed consent to in advance. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  The discussion of late on paying for services seems to follow >>>>>>>>  these lines. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  I am sure that the taxpayers are funding for some basic >>>>>>>>  telecommunications services to include Internet and that the >>>>>>>>  funding goes directly to telecommunications providers to maintain >>>>>>>>  a common system.  At a minimum, all American taxpayers already >>>>>>>>  funding for the federal users of the Internet. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  I do not see having users on the Internet as a problem, because >>>>>>>>  the Internet serves them.  I do have a problem with >>>>>>>>  double-dipping, where the man in the middle (providing the >>>>>>>>  communications) chooses to charge both entities higher and higher >>>>>>>>  rates while selling access to a common system of communication. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  I am concerned that at some point, the costs of provisioning and >>>>>>>>  building the system are amortized away and the resulting high >>>>>>>>  charges would just line the pockets of investors, service >>>>>>>>  providers, and speculators without going to improve the >>>>>>>>  infrastructure for everyone, to include new users coming online. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  I believe that net neutrality should consider the issue of >>>>>>>>  infrastructure delay and retardation because it ultimately >>>>>>>>  disserves the purpose of net neutrality. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  If the infrastructure is indeed improved upon, meaning more >>>>>>>>  bandwidth comes available and more users can access it, then the >>>>>>>>  service providers will continue to receive some taxpayer funding >>>>>>>>  and even a larger customer base for newly established private >>>>>>>>  accounts on the improved infrastructure.  This might even be >>>>>>>>  considered a win-win opportunity for all to benefit. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  Regards. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  Amateur Earth Station AC5JW >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>  On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Miles >>>>>>>>  Fidelman.net>>wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>      Lack of competition, action by the incumbents to block new >>>>>>>>      competition, and action by the incumbents to favor their own >>>>>>>>      content services. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>      Miles Fidelman >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>      Richard Hill wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          Indeed, as I understand it, the FCC has intervened in the >>>>>>>>          US because of the lack of competition in that country. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          Best, >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          Richard >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          *From:*InternetPolicy >>>>>>>>          [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On >>>>>>>>          Behalf Of *Veni Markovski >>>>>>>>          *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:41 >>>>>>>>          *To:* Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m >>>>>>>>          *Cc:*internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org @elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>          *Subject:* Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be >>>>>>>>          defined neutrally >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          +1, as an ISP, we always wanted to build and offer more >>>>>>>>          bandwidth - not last reason was because our competitors >>>>>>>>          were doing the same. In the USA there's practically no >>>>>>>>          real competition - you choose between the cable company >>>>>>>>          (formerly tv), and the phone company (usually one). When >>>>>>>>          I moved there, I wanted to continue with my business, but >>>>>>>>          turned out regulations are made in such a way that they >>>>>>>>          don't allow competition. As a matter of fact, this past >>>>>>>>          week I saw a message that the government would allow the >>>>>>>>          creation of municipal networks, and the telcos protest as >>>>>>>>          this will be unfair competition... >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m >>>>>>>>          .se>> wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> On 28 feb 2015, at 09:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >>>>>>>>          > wrote: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Is this really what happens? Is the ball solely in the >>>>>>>>          ISP court? I'd >>>>>>>>> tend to think the responsibility is shared these days. >>>>>>>>          The explosion of >>>>>>>>> video services has shown an incredible growth in >>>>>>>>          traffic which, if I was >>>>>>>>> an ISP, I'd find very difficult to follow. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          Why? A user can not use more than what the ISP connect >>>>>>>>          them with. If you get 1Mbps from your ISP you can not use >>>>>>>>          more than 1Mbps, right? >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Look at Netflix for example - >>>>>>>>> accounting for 35% of all US Internet traffic during >>>>>>>>          peak periods? >>>>>>>>> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/11/21/netflix-now-accounts-35-over= >all-us-internet-traffic/ >>>>>>>>> Does it pay fairly for all of this traffic? >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          Sure, for an ISP an IP packet is an IP packet. Customers >>>>>>>>          want to use more of them so the ISP can sell more of them. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          Once again, the issue you point at is that users get >>>>>>>>          100Mbps (for example) and earlier used 1Mbps but now uses >>>>>>>>          10Mbps. This implies the traffic in the network have >>>>>>>>          increased with a multiplier of 10 but the ISP do not get >>>>>>>>          more money. Simply because what the user uses is >>>>>>>>          unexpected but still "within" the product that the ISP >>>>>>>>          actually have sold. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          Note: I am not blaming the ISP for doing the wrong thing. >>>>>>>>          I am just explaining what I see the issue is. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          If an ISP has sold "up to 100Mbps" and users earlier did >>>>>>>>          use 1Mbps, but now 10Mbps, why would the ISP get money >>>>>>>>          from Netflix because the 9Mbps unexpected traffic is to >>>>>>>>          Netflix? Netflix already pays for the 9Mbps to their data >>>>>>>>          centers. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>            Patrik >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          -- >>>>>>>>          Best, >>>>>>>>          Veni >>>>>>>> http://veni.com >>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski >>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          *** >>>>>>>>          The opinions expressed above >>>>>>>>          are those of the author, not of >>>>>>>>          any organizations, associated >>>>>>>>          with or related to him in >>>>>>>>          any given way. >>>>>>>>          *** >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          =3D=3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are >>>>>>>>          caused by the touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the >>>>>>>>          reason for using short words and phrases. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>          _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>          To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>>          please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>>          Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account >>>>>>>>          menu. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>      -- >>>>>>>>      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>>      In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>      _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>      To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>>      please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>>      Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Veni >>>>>>>> http://veni.com >>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski >>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above >>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of >>>>>>>> any organizations, associated >>>>>>>> with or related to him in >>>>>>>> any given way. >>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> =3D=3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by t= >he touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the reason for using short words and = >phrases. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> -- >>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>> In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> -- >>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>> In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >> https://portal.isoc.org/ >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>=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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Tue Mar 10 01:12:52 2015 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 05:12:52 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357951B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Milton, To my knowledge there are no "European parties" standing for elections in any Member State of the EU. Yet. There are myriads of permutations (or should I say perturbations) of structures created by "political families" trying to link nations with that sweet slogan "United in Diversity". And as I said before, now even the CJEU has joined the discussion with its Opinion 2/13, which transferred would fall in your category C). For what it's worth, I'm all for motherhood and apple pie. As another Charlie said, let us all unite in the name of democracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA Best regards. //Erik ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday 9 March 2015 20:34 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" Wolfgang Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental. I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more. As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment. Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government. None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples. Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things: A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony > of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > Hi > > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing > discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: > > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: > Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder > processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all > stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the > technical community, the academic community and users. The respective > roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible > manner with reference to the issue under discussion. > > > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo > rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation > of 9.1. > > Wolfgang > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow > Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang > (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of > "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 > "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" > wrote: > > > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR > > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in > > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the > > ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, > > periodic elections etc > > Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to > governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a > very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is > spelled out explicitly. > > > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be > > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic > > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no > > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human > > rights body to my knowledge. > > Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic" > occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same > meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are > some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, > > the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing > > social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar > > limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and > > examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression > > and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : > > > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 > > >David Cake wrote: > > > > > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of > > >> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means > > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all > > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that > > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies > > >> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of > > >> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. > > > > > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a > > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post > > >about this when it is available. > > > > > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting > > >on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the > > >context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in > > >Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > > > > >Greetings, > > >Norbert > > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org > > > > > > > > > > From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 10 01:36:46 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 22:36:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357951B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,<9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357951B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <042601d05af4$354fb2c0$9fef1840$@gmail.com> One of the great speeches of all time... Maybe we should invite him to join the JNC... :) M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of JOSEFSSON Erik Sent: March 9, 2015 10:13 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" Milton, To my knowledge there are no "European parties" standing for elections in any Member State of the EU. Yet. There are myriads of permutations (or should I say perturbations) of structures created by "political families" trying to link nations with that sweet slogan "United in Diversity". And as I said before, now even the CJEU has joined the discussion with its Opinion 2/13, which transferred would fall in your category C). For what it's worth, I'm all for motherhood and apple pie. As another Charlie said, let us all unite in the name of democracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dGPo9XBIPA Best regards. //Erik ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday 9 March 2015 20:34 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" Wolfgang Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental. I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more. As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment. Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government. None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples. Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things: A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > Hi > > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre > wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: > > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: > Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder > processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of > all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil > society, the technical community, the academic community and users. > The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be > interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion. > > > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao > Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the > implementation of 9.1. > > Wolfgang > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert > Bollow > Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang > ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 > "Benedek, Wolfgang ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" > < wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> wrote: > > > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR > > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in > > Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the > > ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, > > periodic elections etc > > Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in > relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not > used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and > its government democratic is spelled out explicitly. > > > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be > > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic > > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no > > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international > > human rights body to my knowledge. > > Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic" > occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the > same > meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, > here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, > > the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing > > social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the > > similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More > > and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of > > Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter < nb at bollow.ch>: > > > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 > > >David Cake < dave at difference.com.au> wrote: > > > > > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions > > >> of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means > > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all > > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that > > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies > > >> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of > > >> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. > > > > > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a > > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post > > >about this when it is available. > > > > > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in > > >reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" > > >in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is > > >used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > > > > >Greetings, > > >Norbert > > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Tue Mar 3 16:12:22 2015 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:12:22 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Net Neutrality in the next Internet In-Reply-To: <14be1679548.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org> <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca> <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com> <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <54F613AC.9020902@gmail.com>,<14be1679548.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577920@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> +1 (meaning i am like willi) ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday 3 March 2015 21:50 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 1net.org discuss; willi uebelherr Subject: Re: [governance] Net Neutrality in the next Internet I am afraid you are talking about something you don't know first hand and don't understand to begin with. On March 4, 2015 5:05:00 AM willi uebelherr wrote: > Am 02/03/2015 um 10:25 p.m. schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: > > Why do you need cdns? Well, if you want to access say operating system > > updates, your email, sports scores etc at about the same speed in > > Bolivia as people would be able to in whichever country the cdn was > > hosted.. That's where cdns come in handy. > > > > Ixp? So isps in your area can exchange local traffic and keep it local, > > so mutually ensuring fast access for each other's customers to sites > > they host. Save on expensive international bandwidth too. > > > > As for why you need isps, I do hope you want to connect to the Internet. > > You need an isp for that, you know. > > > > Next question please? > > Hello Suresh (from governance list), > > you should really read the emails. Then you understand my answer. We > don't need this stupid constructions. We need the InterNet, "the > interconnection of local networks". > > But this private networks, that are connected in IXP?s, with the private > resource dealers, the ISP's, the private "Content Delivery Networks", a > group of parasitic mafia, all this we don't need. > > We need the InterNet. > > many greetings, willi > La Paz, Bolivia > > > > > > ---------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > From dave at difference.com.au Tue Mar 10 02:30:23 2015 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:30:23 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <99A63972-A90D-4432-B342-5F3AF63BB377@difference.com.au> On 6 Mar 2015, at 7:20 am, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will. My observation is that MS processes do not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involved specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably different interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various kinds. It is certainly true that multi-stakeholder processes do not work well in situations in which consensus absolutely cannot be reached. Conflict and consensus are different things, however - getting a group of conflicted parties together knowing that they only way they can ensure their priorities are represented in the final outcome is by being part of a consensus is a very good mechanism for resolving conflict. > > My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or stress it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) and proceed as though nothing had occurred – in this way they are achieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to divergent positions and interests. It would be helpful if you could point to examples where you think this has occurred. I’m not disagreeing per se, there are cases where the situation you describe, or something like it occurs, though I wouldn’t characterise it the same way. For example, when one participant threatens to walk away from a process because they don’t get the outcome they want, then sure, other participants may close ranks to minimise damage to the forum itself, in which all have some investment - but this isn’t always negative. I would say the answer here is to ensure that such fora are open enough that the power of ‘insiders’ is minimised, and those who feel their interests would be harmed are able to remedy their concerns by becoming participants. > > > Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of effective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the absence of some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing accountability, transparency etc. I always find the way in which this form of analysis makes civil society participants (many of whom are doing so on a volunteer basis and supporting themselves by other means, and most of whom are chronically under funded and overworked) part of a social/economic elite that have captured the process for their own purposes. But of course I agree that we could improve effective accountability and representability, though I acknowledge that the latter is proving difficult in practice. But the real issue here is the obvious massive statist bias here - why should we assume that states, many of which have a long history of corruption, and many of which clearly have enormous problems with transparency, are the only effective means of enforcing accountability and transparency? Again, we are asked to believe that states are the only effective means of ensuring these things, but when processes like the TPPA and TTIP are shown as clear massive failures of transparency and accountability, I doubt we will have an answer. > > In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of value. Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil society (or government such as those found in many LDC’s for that matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour of elite and dominant interests. I say only that we will have more chance of getting a better result from open transparent processes than we do from government led trade processes. There has to be more than a negative critique of multi-stakeholder processes here - there needs to be a contrasting positive example. So far, the obvious examples of government led processes in the same policy area are pretty much all clearly worse. You have to show an example decision making process that is clearly better, not imagine a process that you think would be better if it existed. Regards David > > > > > > > I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a paradigm. > > > > [MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better… > > > > > > Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic pluralism. > > > > [MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the “democratic” comes in… perhaps you could explain. > > > > > > Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way as democratic processes. > > > > [MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the possibility of rectification. With legitimized control by powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I can see at rectification. Those interests are in fact legally obliged (under current law) to maximize their individual interests whatever the collective good. I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends – how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or… for Google I can’t even find a phone number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountability and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic decision making—but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an undefined “pig in a poke” doesn’t seem to me to be a very good social trade off to be making. > > > > Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping to shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a system of government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate us and legitimize powerful interests. > > > > [MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and structures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of democracy. Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn’t mean that the aspiration of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social justice is not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and cavalierly rejected in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) elites. > > > > I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now, even if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term. And I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Perhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have. > > > > [MG] yes.. > > > > BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance. Is this the official position of APC? > > > > M > > > > Shawna > > > > On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion... > > > > > > Just a couple of things... > > > > > > An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its > > > willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been > > > trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a > > > qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to > > > one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the > > > context of Internet Governance. APC could (and in my opinion > > > should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of > > > democracy as a fundamental governance principle. > > > > > > Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear > > > indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of > > > "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear > > > indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on > > > to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a > > > clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who > > > signed on to this agreement. > > > > > > And please be aware that this is not trivial... > > > > > > The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see > > > MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide > > > variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in > > > security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy" > > > as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of > > > what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global > > > decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position? > > > > > > The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance > > > by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC and others means that the > > > necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most > > > effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely > > > ignored, of course further empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is > > > this APC's preferred position? > > > > > > So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action > > > rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in > > > the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others > > > who are so blithely jumping on the MS > > > bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of > > > multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their > > > own normative structures...? > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan > > > [ mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael > > > Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at > > > UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > > > > > Dear Michael, > > > > > > While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the > > > discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your > > > question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of > > > 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy. > > > > > > In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been > > > that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various > > > multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it > > > is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support > > > our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively > > > engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights > > > Council. > > > > > > Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing > > > discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced > > > cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation > > > is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet > > > governance: > > > > > > "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a > > > means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance > > > that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva > > > Declaration, for “the attainment of a more peaceful, just and > > > prosperous world.” > > > > > > (from our submission: > > > http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf > > > ) > > > > > > There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' > > > over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC > > > engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change. > > > > > > Shawna > > > > > > On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > >> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by > > >> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to > > >> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of > > >> "multistakeholderism > > >> < https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-liberalism-and-global-internet-governance/>" > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social > > >> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of > > >> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning" > > >> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the > > >> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally > > >> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil > > >> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide > > >> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I > > >> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent > > >> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being > > >> evolved") in this sphere. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of > > >> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own > > >> normative structures as I queried in my previous email? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> M > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- From: > > >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > >> [ mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette > > >> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To: > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting > > >> the Dots Conference" > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Dear all > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Just an explanation and some context. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to > > >> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and > > >> secretariat in compiling drafts. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of > > >> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC > > >> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the > > >> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which > > >> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft). > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any > > >> reason other than it came during the final session and the > > >> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked > > >> directly to the Study. > > >> > > >> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to > > >> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study > > >> report rather than in the outcome statement. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the > > >> discussion. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really > > >> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to > > >> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the > > >> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for > > >> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the > > >> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very > > >> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so > > >> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly > > >> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This > > >> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be > > >> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of > > >> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back > > >> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having > > >> 'democratic' > > >> > > >> in front of multistakeholder. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for > > >> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into > > >> the text. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', > > >> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they > > >> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and > > >> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could > > >> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference > > >> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not > > >> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that > > >> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but > > >> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the > > >> number of requests for putting it in. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated > > >> in this way. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as > > >> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in > > >> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the > > >> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that > > >> anonymity is illegitimate. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in > > >> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the > > >> gains vs. the losses. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. > > >> Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence in the > > >> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its > > >> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people > > >> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn, > > >> participate and influence internet-related debates with > > >> policy-makers. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know > > >> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they > > >> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or > > >> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be > > >> the values - of the Just Net Coalition. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Anriette > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100 > > >> > > >>> Jeremy Malcolm < jmalcolm at eff.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein > >> < mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> > > >> > > >>>> wrote: > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > >>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the > > >> > > >>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and > > >> > > >>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to > > >> > > >>>>> have global significance? > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> With pleasure. This is why: > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to > > >>>> - > > >>>> > > >>>> > > t > > >> > > >>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is > > >>> JNC's > > >> > > >>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position > > >>> of > > >> > > >>> JNC. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be > > >> > > >>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human > > >>> right, > > >> > > >>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented > > >> > > >>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be > > >>> democratic. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this 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. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is > > >> > > >>> implemented in a way that is not democratic. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global > > >>> governance > > >> > > >>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational > > >> > > >>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are > > >> > > >>> democratic *and* participative. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is > > >> > > >>> our goal, which he describes as “limited type of government-led > > >> > > >>> rulemaking”. That would clearly *not* be participative. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and* > > >> > > >>> participative. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> Is that so hard to understand??? > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier > > >> > > >>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the > > >> > > >>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite > > >>> full > > >> > > >>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response > > >>> (which > > >> > > >>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> Greetings, > > >> > > >>> Norbert > > >> > > >>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition > > >> > > >>> http://JustNetCoalition.org > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> > > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> > > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>> < mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > >> > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >> > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >> > > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >> > > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >> > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________ You > > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, > > >> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > >> > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Tue Mar 10 03:11:16 2015 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:11:16 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton summarises the problems with the use of the term democracy without further explanation far better than I did. +1 On 10 Mar 2015, at 3:34 am, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Wolfgang > > Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental. > > I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more. > As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment. > > Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government. > > None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples. > > Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things: > > A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy > > B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic > > C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? > > I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> Hi >> >> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing >> discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: >> >> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: >> Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder >> processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all >> stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the >> technical community, the academic community and users. The respective >> roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible >> manner with reference to the issue under discussion. >> >> >> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo >> rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation >> of 9.1. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow >> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang >> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 >> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" >> wrote: >> >>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR >>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in >>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the >>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, >>> periodic elections etc >> >> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to >> governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a >> very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is >> spelled out explicitly. >> >>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be >>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic >>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no >>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human >>> rights body to my knowledge. >> >> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic" >> occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same >> meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are >> some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, >>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing >>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar >>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and >>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression >>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. >>> >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : >>> >>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 >>>> David Cake wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of >>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means >>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all >>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that >>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies >>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of >>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. >>>> >>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a >>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post >>>> about this when it is available. >>>> >>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting >>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the >>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in >>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://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 -------------- 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 erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Tue Mar 10 03:44:22 2015 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 07:44:22 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43579569@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> David, I was at a conference recently on "Cultures of Accountability: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Current and Future Accountability Mechanisms". If anyone wants to dig into the cultural discourse I am sure Brendan Van Alsenoy and Fanny Coudert would be happy to help. What I brought with me from that conference was that "democratic accountability" was referred to as a kind of implicit last resort when many of the speakers gave witness of how terribly bad accountability mechanisms worked in their disciplines of study respectively. I think that the issues here are far more complex than navigating among definitions of "democracy", "transparency" or "openness". I think Milton is right in the sense that most thinking in this field is a confused mosh of perceptions. Still, every one of us knows exactly what Chaplin was talking about. Best regards. //Erik ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 08:11 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" Milton summarises the problems with the use of the term democracy without further explanation far better than I did. +1 On 10 Mar 2015, at 3:34 am, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Wolfgang > > Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental. > > I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more. > As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment. > > Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government. > > None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples. > > Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things: > > A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy > > B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic > > C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? > > I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> Hi >> >> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing >> discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: >> >> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: >> Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder >> processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all >> stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the >> technical community, the academic community and users. The respective >> roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible >> manner with reference to the issue under discussion. >> >> >> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo >> rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation >> of 9.1. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow >> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang >> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >> >> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 >> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" >> wrote: >> >>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR >>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in >>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the >>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, >>> periodic elections etc >> >> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to >> governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a >> very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is >> spelled out explicitly. >> >>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be >>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic >>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no >>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human >>> rights body to my knowledge. >> >> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic" >> occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same >> meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are >> some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, >>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing >>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar >>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and >>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression >>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. >>> >>> Wolfgang Benedek >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : >>> >>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 >>>> David Cake wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of >>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means >>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all >>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that >>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies >>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of >>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. >>>> >>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a >>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post >>>> about this when it is available. >>>> >>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting >>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the >>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in >>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://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 From nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 10 04:25:48 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:25:48 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Democracy (was Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference") In-Reply-To: <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20150310092548.6f531be9@quill> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:34:45 +0000 Milton L Mueller wrote: > Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multistakeholder" doesn't > solve the problem. It is more fundamental. > > I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder > a dozen times, if not more. As I have pointed out repeatedly, and > Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less > its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment. I strongly disagree. Whenever a word has a well-established literal meaning, and it is commonly used in the sense of that meaning, then it has that meaning everywhere where that literal meaning makes sense, and where it is not clear from the context that the word is meant in a different sense. The literal meaning of δημοκρατία (dēmokratía), in modern language "democracy", is that "it's the people who have the power to rule". This is since ancient times seen in contrast to "the rule of an elite", the ancient Greek term for the latter being ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratía). How democratic governance, in the sense of that literal meaning, is to be implemented in an increasingly globalized and increasingly ICT-based world (of which the Internet is nowadays already a rather central aspect, and it is widely expected that the centrality of the Internet will continue to grow), that is something that requires discussion and consensus building. In my view, this needed discussion and consensus building should be based on first of all agreeing that governance is needed to some extent, and that to the extent that governance is needed, it must be democratic in the sense of the literal meaning of the word "democratic" as stated above. > Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a > defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with > territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to > them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences > of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of > democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and > to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of > government. That is a very good summary of how democracy is implemented in the context of a national state. > None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the > internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global > constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised > by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and > effectuating the preferences of a global population. I agree that trying to directly translate "how democracy is implemented in the context of a national state" to the Internet would not make a lot of sense, and to the extent that it might partly make sense, it would not be desirable to do so. The resulting system of "Internet government" would not in any worthwhile way be a democratic system. > The territorial > division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically > governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the > increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on > immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples. I certainly agree there is a lot which goes badly in democratic decision-making. Already Plato pointed this out in ancient Athens in very impressive ways, and he suggested the alternative of putting an elite of philosophers in power. Since those ancient times, the proponents of democracy have always been aware of the arguments of Plato and of those who have followed in his footsteps, consciously rejecting those arguments. In fact it's the central premise of democracy that in spite of these problems with democratic decision-making, putting any kind of elite in power must nevertheless absolutely be avoid. There are very good reasons for this: Even though putting an elite in power might lead to more rational decision making, even then that (more rational) decision making capacity would be exercised primarily according to the interests and according to the (necessarily limited) knowledge and experiences of the members of the elite. In fact much of what goes wrong in the governance of national states which are democratic (or which at least claim to be democratic) can be blamed on the fact that even in such states (despite all the checks and balances and other good countermeasures against elites gaining unreasonable power) there are often still elites which gain a lot of power and abuse it for their own gain; the resulting anger of the people is then exploited by populists. The way to improve political systems in order to reduce this kind of phenomenon is not to give up on the ideal of democracy, but to implement it more effectively, so that there will be less abuse of power by elites, and therefore less public anger, and therefore less opportunity for populists who will try to exploit such anger whenever they get the chance. I believe that a very promising opportunity for implementing democracy more effectively is available through the Internet and through the logic tree methods of Eli Goldratt's Theory of Constraints, ideally with some adaptations of the latter to make them even more suitable for supporting public political discourse being conducted via the Internet: I see great opportunities for improving the quality and depth and inclusiveness of public discourse, which will do a lot to make various structures of governance, including formal state-based structures of democracy, more democratic in the sense of reducing the degree to which governance is driven and controlled by elites. > Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC Where is any "appropriation of the term 'democratic' by JNC"??? Using a word in the sense of its well-established literal meaning is simply using the word. Just like many others are also using the word. While it is true that we are pro-democracy, there are many other people and groups who are also pro-democracy. Even here on this list, where there is a lot of hostility towards pro-democracy ideas and towards the more active advocates of pro-democracy ideas, it is not only JNC members who argue in favor of democracy. > can mean any of these things: > > A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that > "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be > against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is > democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure > democracy > > B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of > existing states over internet governance, which means not only > "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also > the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if > 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic > > C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic > institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a > globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what > form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how > they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about > "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of > us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law > do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? Curiously, the literal meaning of the word is not even included in this, obviously highly politically motivated, list of possible meanings. That in spite of my repeated insistence over the past few days, here on this very mailing list, that we mean the word in its literal sense and not as code for something else. > I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of > these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is > basically represented by B. I assure you that our thinking is not "a confused mosh", and I would expect the above discussion to make this abundantly clear. If the concern of possible misinterpretation of our "'democratic' advocacy" to the effect of your point "B" is a real concern (as opposed to mere populistic scaremongering), please propose words to express the literal meaning of "democratic" in a way that will avoid that risk of misinterpretation which you claim exists on the basis of using the word "democratic". There is unavoidably always the risk that some people will misinterpret words, for example because they were misinformed about the perspective and intentions of those who use the words, or because they act in bad faith with an intention of distorting the words of political opponents. This risk can be minimized by using words which are as clear as possible, but it can never be completely avoided. On the other hand, some choices of words are simply not clear enough even in the context of well-informed good-faith dialogue in which each side makes a reasonable and honest effort at trying to understand what the other side is saying, and responses are given on the basis of that. I don't think that the current wave of claims about the meaning of the word "democratic" not being clear enough is justified, but to the extent that such claims might be justified, that should be a simple enough problem to solve: I will be happy to start using any word or phrase which expresses the literal meaning of the word "democratic" more clearly than the word "democratic" itself does. Greetings, Norbert From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Mar 10 09:54:04 2015 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:54:04 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: References: <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <54FA0190.5000903@apc.org> <0a1e01d05853$bd20aef0$37620cd0$@gmail.com> <54FAE4D3.20702@gmx.net> <01be01d058d6$dcafaa90$960effb0$@gmail.com> <02f201d058f8$500fc990$f02f5cb0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C03@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54FC1D22.4010104@itforchange.net>,<54FC2189.601000 0@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43578F2D@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <14bf9957e78.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <8B99A046-8DB9-481E-AB7E-FC501F9FFE88@theglobaljournal.net> <14bfa05b508.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <54FEF77C.4010405@cafonso.ca> Was this between you and Suresh? Why post on the list then? We do not need to know about your mutual secrets... :-) --c.a. On 08-03-15 18:34, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > Suresh, > > One question between you and me : are you that familiar with such animal > as you sound expert with /caqueting/and trolling. I just realize we > have a lot more to learn from you. Such a cute little animal indeed, > with only one leg, one eye, one key idea : the world is divided in > multi-stakeholderism - or should we call it expanded democracy as > Jeanette defines it- and Multi-la-lateralism. Any strabismus issue? Does > this animal still have a brain, unless it doesn't need it anymore? We'll > keep this for the off-line humor chat-room and our MSist freak show. > > Thanks for your insight and reflection. > > JC > > > > Le 8 mars 2015 à 16:34, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > >> Amazing. A third way that still works out in favor of the multilateral >> advocates >> >> If it walks like a multilateral duck, if it quacks like a multilateral >> duck.. >> >> On March 8, 2015 9:01:14 PM Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal > > wrote: >> >>>> The merits of democracy are not being argued (GREAT NEWS!!) here as >>>> much as the tendency for this word to be used solely in a >>>> multilateral context in UN circles. >>>> >>> Solely? No. This is solely your assumption. >>> In a multilateral context? No, wrong again. One problem that do have >>> MSists is their dear denial of any role to governments. MSits >>> favorite sport is governmental bashing (except for USG, the good guy >>> of their story). >>> In UN circles. No. Most of its use happens outside the UN, in civil life. >>> >>>> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as democratic. >>>> >>> Would it be "through consensus" democracies would have gone no way. A >>> majority, made by honest voting in a clear constitutional framework, >>> can only exercise the will of the people. A consensus can be a good >>> warning paving the way to a new collective rule, still a vote might >>> often turn it into something that will be respected, transparent and >>> accountable. Consensus is a very vague process, easily flawed. Rough >>> consensus is even worse. Again governance is no to be built on >>> techies's philosophy of daily practice. Consensus related to >>> governance fits to capos and rubber barons. Not to public policy >>> making (which is where we do have a fight). >>> >>>> The question here is what political significance will get attached >>>> to that word, especially when it is advocated by a grouping that >>>> explicitly favors multilateral governance structures. >>>> >>> Especially when its very existence is denied by MSits who, amusingly, >>> claimed to be MSits for the sake of democracy. MSits know better what >>> the people need. >>> >>> No, JNC is not favoring Multilateral governance. This another >>> assumption is a lie. JNC is advocating a third way. Most MSists are >>> bodyguards to the status-quo. We see it in any list, any venue. We >>> have seen it again during the connecting the dots, or the Dotting the >>> I's, as Louis Pouzin put it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 8 mars 2015 à 14:31, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >>> >>>> The merits of democracy are not being argued here as much as the >>>> tendency for this word to be used solely in a multilateral context >>>> in UN circles. >>>> >>>> Any consensus based approach can certainly be described as >>>> democratic. The question here is what political significance will >>>> get attached to that word, especially when it is advocated by a >>>> grouping that explicitly favors multilateral governance structures. >>>> >>>> On March 8, 2015 6:40:17 PM JOSEFSSON Erik >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> I want to add to the complexity with another perspective (albeit I >>>>> think the underlying understanding is congruent with what >>>>> Jean-Christophe described), namely the overview Eben Moglen >>>>> recently gave in New Zealand athttp://linux.conf.au/. I point the >>>>> video to the part where transparency, participation and >>>>> non-hierarchical collaboration is described as conditions that grew >>>>> out of technical work on making the internet. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0#t=11m20s >>>>> >>>>> Mr Moglen says that later on (at ~18m) that "principles of >>>>> transparency, participation and non-hierarchical collaboration, >>>>> they are themselves a social and political program". >>>>> >>>>> Isn't that program about democratically accountable internet >>>>> governance? >>>>> >>>>> Or am I just taking the best governance bits out of the conference >>>>> of connected dots? >>>>> >>>>> //Erik >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] >>>>> on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>> *Sent:*Sunday 8 March 2015 11:16 >>>>> *To:*governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> ; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; >>>>> Michael Gurstein; Benedek, Wolfgang; best Bits >>>>> *Subject:*Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing >>>>> Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>>>> >>>>> And of course, the main question still is: what is your >>>>> Internet-related global public policy decision making model?(Or do >>>>> you have a case that Internet related global policy making is not >>>>> needed, or that it is happening quite fine?) >>>>> >>>>> If you are just ready to say - no, corporates do not have the same >>>>> role as governments, and cannot claim to participate as equals or >>>>> on an equal footing, in Internet-related global policy decision >>>>> making - that is enough. We can all agree, and all these ongoing >>>>> contentions be put behind us, and we can work as one. Is this that >>>>> difficult? Why do people choke on making this simple assertion, >>>>> which would clearly follow from simple democratic principles and >>>>> ideals. >>>>> >>>>> Is this not a simple way to remove the deep contestations that are >>>>> evident here, which so many find so unsightly? >>>>> >>>>> Meanwhile, if others have any simple assertion (or a set of them) >>>>> that they want to know if JNC agrees to or not, we promise to come >>>>> back immediately on that. >>>>> >>>>> Isnt it better to clearly bring out the actual and specific points >>>>> of differences, and see if these can be closed, rather than long >>>>> email exchanges where one can be presenting mother and apple pie >>>>> assertions, and feel quite good about it. Lets do real political >>>>> talk here, and seek closing differences, and if we cant, at least >>>>> know what the precise differences are. If we can commit ourself to >>>>> this concise methodology, we will be making progress. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday 08 March 2015 03:27 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> I will reply to the emails of both Wolfgangs together, and some >>>>>> other emails of a similar kind. >>>>>> >>>>>> We are getting circular with this discussion, so lets try to cut >>>>>> the circularity with some specifics. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. You say democracy, esp in its practise, is not clear, but is >>>>>> MSism (multistakeholder-ism) clearer? Should then both words no >>>>>> longer be used in IG docs. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. No one asked for MS word to be removed from the doc, this is an >>>>>> impotant point to remember. On the other hand people positively >>>>>> insisted that democracy/ democratic not be included, and others >>>>>> thought nothing of such insistence, and the consequent >>>>>> non-inclusion (and continue to do so in this discussion) - this is >>>>>> the problem. Do you read nothing here. I, and JNC, reads a lot, >>>>>> and is positively dismayed. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. About the advice that we (JNC) should not play word games and >>>>>> focus on 'concrete issues': Really! What was the Netmundial doc >>>>>> about with about 40 references to the MS word and precisely one >>>>>> and a half to democratic? Did it just innocently come to that, or >>>>>> were some people playing intensive word games there (Jeanette, you >>>>>> really were in the middle of that whole thing, no)? Why this >>>>>> gratuitous advice that dont mind 'democracy' but we will always be >>>>>> making sure that the MS word goes into ever single place. Lets >>>>>> please be fair here. >>>>>> >>>>>> 4. Finally, Can any one of you honestly say that if someone has >>>>>> said at the meeting, 'MS term contains baggage', and opposed the >>>>>> use of the term 'MS' as a result of which it had got removed from >>>>>> the document, the whole space would not have gone hopping mad? >>>>>> There would have been strong denouncements and walk outs. This is >>>>>> direct question - would it not have been so? Then why cant people >>>>>> think and act in a similar manner about the 'democratic' term. >>>>>> That is the issue here. An honest consideration of this other >>>>>> hypothetical situation, and a reponse on what would have happened >>>>>> if the MS word was excluded, will make very clear what is the main >>>>>> issue here. Anyone? >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday 07 March 2015 11:07 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>>>>>> This >>>>>>> discussion is bizarr. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Civil Society should concentrate on concrete issues as access, >>>>>>> infrastructure, data protection, freedom of expression, education, capacity >>>>>>> building, cultural diversity etc. In my eyes CS can achieve more when they >>>>>>> communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders. Insofar a >>>>>>> "multistakeholder approach" where CS is involved as an equal >>>>>>> partner in its respective role, gives civil society more opportunities and >>>>>>> options than a "one stakeholder approach" where CS is excluded >>>>>>> from final policy and decision making and its role is reduced to implement >>>>>>> on the "community level" what other stakeholders have decided. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wolfgang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, for people who like "wordsmithing" and "playing with >>>>>>> paragraphs" I recommend to read para. 35 of the Tunis Agenda in the >>>>>>> light of para. 34. Para. 34 speaks about "shared decision making >>>>>>> procedures". Para. 35a says that states "have rights and >>>>>>> responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues". >>>>>>> The paragraph 35a does not say that states have "exclusive >>>>>>> rights". With other words,if you read 35 in the light of 34, states >>>>>>> (and their governments) have to "share decision making" on >>>>>>> "Internet related public policy issues" with other stakeholders. >>>>>>> This is not easy to achive. But this is the challenge where we have to move >>>>>>> forward by being creative. The NetMundial conference offered an interesting >>>>>>> model. More forward looking Innovation is needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think what you mean below is not "a consensus on the understanding and >>>>>>> role of democracy in the context of the internet" but rather a >>>>>>> consensus on >>>>>>> how to effectively operationalize democracy in the context of the Internet >>>>>>> something with which I (and the JNC) completely agree and which we have been >>>>>>> advocating for a long time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further, I think that even in the absence of a fully formed consensus on the >>>>>>> definition of "democracy" there seems, at least based on my >>>>>>> quotes from Mr. >>>>>>> Mandela and the US State Department, sufficient comfort in a working >>>>>>> definition of democracy that Mr. Mandela would commit his life to the >>>>>>> endeavour and the US-State Department would make it a fundamental pillar of >>>>>>> US foreign policy. Based on this, presumably "we" could have >>>>>>> sufficient >>>>>>> comfort to "force" it into international documents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The same, I should add cannot in any sense be said for multistakeholderism, >>>>>>> a concept which even its strongest advocates acknowledge is ill-formed, >>>>>>> shape shifting from context to context and lacks any consistent definition >>>>>>> either in theory or in practice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> M >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>>>>>> [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] >>>>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 6:02 AM >>>>>>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >>>>>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First to make my position clear I'm myself an advocate of democratic >>>>>>> governance and a holistic approach to human rights although not as an >>>>>>> alternative to multistakeholderism, the potential of which in my view still >>>>>>> needs to be developed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Second I have myself proposed in writing to the Secretariat to include >>>>>>> certain language on global citizenship education, a concept supported by the >>>>>>> UN Secretary General and developed very actively in the educational sector >>>>>>> of UNECO while only mentioned once in the UNESCO study to resolve ethical >>>>>>> issues in cyberspace. Finally, the concept was only mentioned without any >>>>>>> elaboration. And I'm aware that several other proposals made by others were >>>>>>> not taken up at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding the baggage issue, I'm not an insider to these discussions, I have >>>>>>> no problem with appeals to democratic values, but I'm aware that the concept >>>>>>> of democracy has also been misused a lot in history, take the examples of >>>>>>> the former German Democratic Republic(GDR), the Democratic Republic of Congo >>>>>>> (DRC) or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It would be good to work >>>>>>> for a consensus on the understanding and role of democracy in the context of >>>>>>> the internet among civil society and academia first before forcing it into >>>>>>> international documents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 07.03.15 14:01 schrieb "Michael Gurstein" unter < >>>>>>> gurstein at gmail.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And to be very clear, in the case of >>>>>>>> "democracy" it wasn't >>>>>>>> simply a >>>>>>>> matter of the concept >>>>>>>> "not making it into the final >>>>>>>> document" but >>>>>>>> rather that those involved >>>>>>>> made the clear political choice to promote >>>>>>>> "multistakeholderism" and >>>>>>>> suppress "democracy". >>>>>>>> M >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [ >>>>>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf >>>>>>> Of Norbert >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Klein >>>>>>>> Sent: March 7, 2015 3:45 AM >>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] >>>>>>>> [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>>>>>>> On 03/07/2015 02:30 >>>>>>>> PM, Benedek, Wolfgang >>>>>>>> ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> As >>>>>>>>> a participant and speaker in the UNESCO conference Connecting the >>>>>>>>> dots: Options for future action in Paris I think it is >>>>>>>>> important to >>>>>>>>> put the record straight: the main purpose of the >>>>>>>>> conference was to >>>>>>>>> give feedback to the UNESCO draft Internet study and >>>>>>>>> advise on the >>>>>>>>> future priorities in this field. This was done in several >>>>>>>>> plenary and >>>>>>>>> 16 breakout sessions in a MSH-approach quite successfully. >>>>>>>>> The fact that two concepts important to some did not make >>>>>>>>> it into the >>>>>>>>> outcome document should not be overestimated as this is >>>>>>>>> all work in >>>>>>>>> progress. Also other concepts dear to others were not or >>>>>>>>> only partly >>>>>>>>> included. I also do not remember that these concepts were >>>>>>>>> elaborated >>>>>>>>> on during the sessions or panels in any significant way in >>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>> deepen their understanding. >>>>>>>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>>>>>>> Dear Mr. Benedek, >>>>>>>> thanks for this, for this type of, clarification - using only >>>>>>>> formalities like >>>>>>>> "Also other concepts dear to others were not or >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> partly included." >>>>>>>> I cannot easily imagine what kind of "other concept" of a >>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>> importance and weight could >>>>>>>> be lined up with "democracy." I >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> appreciate it if you, as a >>>>>>>> participant in this UNESCO conference, could >>>>>>>> share some of these >>>>>>>> "other concepts" which were also not, or >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> partially, included. >>>>>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>>>>> Norbert Klein >>>>>>>> Cambodia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 10 12:20:28 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:20:28 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [Steeringcommittee] FW: [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <002901d05b06$80f314d0$82d93e70$@ch> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4357951B@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <042401d05af2$a0d58e40$e280aac0$@gmail.com> <002901d05b06$80f314d0$82d93e70$@ch> Message-ID: <016a01d05b4e$2006aef0$60140cd0$@gmail.com> Please see Richard Hill's informed response to Milton's amazingly shallow characterization of the state of global governance structures. M -----Original Message----- From: Steeringcommittee [mailto:steeringcommittee-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of Richard Hill Sent: March 10, 2015 12:48 AM To: steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org Subject: Re: [Steeringcommittee] FW: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" Please see my embedded comments below and feel free to forward, quote, or reuse, with or without attribution, as you see fit. multi-stakeholderism? It is long overdue. Best, Richard > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller > [mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday 9 March 2015 20:34 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert > Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > Wolfgang > > Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't > solve the problem. It is more fundamental. > > I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder > a dozen times, if not more. > As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very > meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely > unclear in a globalized environment. Indeed it needs to be clarified, but this does not make it undesirable. > > Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined > and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial > states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define > an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen > population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision > making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks > and balances on the various branches of government. Yes, and on an international order (agreements between states) that further limits the power and scope of states in order to protect individual rights and to maintain checks and balances. People tend to forget that the main reason behind the treaty of Westphalia of 1648, and one of its great accomplishments, was that states (kings) agreed that they would not intervene in the internal affairs of other states. That was a significant limit on royal power. People also tend to forget that treaties must (at least in democratic countries) be ratified by national parliaments. So they are even more legitimate than national laws because they represent the democratically expressed will of people in many countries. > > None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the > internet. > There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global > constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised > by a global state, etc. That is not correct. There are numerous treaties that divide and limit the powers that can be exercises by states, whether nationally or globally. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related treaties constitute significant components of what can be considered a global constitution. The legislative branch at the global level is the treaty-making process. The judicial branch is mostly national courts (who, in many countries, must apply international law as well as national law), but, for some specific matters, there are international courts. The executive branch is the national governments. Looked at from this point of view, the world is a federal state, with the national states being the members of the federation. For sure it is a rather weak federation, but stronger than Europe Union was at the beginning. > There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the > preferences of a global population. Incorrect. Treaties are the mechanisms used to aggregate and effectuate the preferences of the global population. For sure that is an imperfect mechanism and it should be improved, but it is an existing mechanism and it is reasonably effective in some areas (for example, international commercial law). > The territorial division of > populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, > creates its own > pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of > European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of > hundreds of possible examples. To state that that is a pathology is a value judgment. Others might take the view that it is pathological to think that there should be no restrictions whatsoever on immigration. > > Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any > of these things: > > A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that > "democracy" > is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. > Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. > This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy As Churchill said, it is the least worst system that we know of. Those who criticize democracy should explain what alternative is better. In particular, those who think that states do not properly represent the people should explain what mechanism they propose that would properly represent the people. > > B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing > states over internet governance, I thought that it was widely agreed that offline law applies equally online. So I don't think that the assertion of the authority of existing states over Internet governance is a matter for debate. What can be, and is being, debated is whether some new laws are needed to cover some aspects of the Internet. For example, some states don't tax Internet transactions or, conversely, are considering clarifying their tax laws so as to eliminate certain forms of tax avoidance based on Internet transactions. > which means not only "democracy" in > the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized > UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations > voting are not internally democratic And it also refers to the system of international law, mostly enunciated in treaties, that I have outlined above and is democratic in ways in which federal states are democratic. > > C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic > institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a > globalized framework. No, not easily. But what is the alternative? >But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new >institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid >abuses of power? Because (1) it is a difficult problem that requires considerable thought and (2) the very idea is dismissed out of hand, thus cutting off any intelligent debate, as can be seen from this very post. >When MG or NB talk about "democratic" > regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), >what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate >under and to which courts are they accountable? That depends on the subject matter. For commercial matters, such as taxation, the answer is pretty clear. For data privacy, I (Richard Hill) personally believe that it should be the law and the courts of the individual. One could work out an answer for other matters too, and in some cases the answer would be that the current setup is not appropriate and should be changed. > > I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of > these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is > basically represented by B. I'm not sure what B. is. But a denial of democracy as a guiding principle is either a naïve belief in some superior system that nobody has yet explained, or a deliberate intent to favor the commercial forces that are perverting the Internet and democracy, as documented in detail in Robert McChesney's book Digital Disconnect, see: http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Disconnect-Capitalism-Internet-Democracy/dp/15 95588671 > > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at > > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing > > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > > > Hi > > > > I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre > > wortdsmithing discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo > > Declaration > which states: > > > > 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: > > Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder > > processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of > > all stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil > > society, the technical community, the academic community and users. > > The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be > > interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under > discussion. > > > > > > It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao > > Paulo rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the > > implementation of 9.1. > > > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert > > Bollow > > Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 > > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang > > (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing > > Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 > > "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" > > wrote: > > > > > on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the > UDHR > > > and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used > > > in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of > > > the ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's > > > country, periodic elections etc > > > > Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in > > relation to governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not > > used, but instead a very very central aspect of makes a society and > > its government democratic is spelled out explicitly. > > > > > The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be > > > restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic > > > society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no > > > authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international > > > human rights body to my knowledge. > > > > Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word > "democratic" > > occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with > > the same > > meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, > > here are some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, > Art. > 4. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > However, in the context of the European Convention on Human > > > Rights, the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a > > > "pressing social need" for restrictions which are possible based > > > on the similar limitation clause "necessary in a democratic > > > society". More and examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on > > > Freedom of Expression and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. > > > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : > > > > > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 David Cake > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions > > > >> of mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means > > > >> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all > > > >> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that > > > >> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC > denies > > > >> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of > > > >> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. > > > > > > > >I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a > > > >position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post > > > >about this when it is available. > > > > > > > >In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in > > > >reflecting on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" > > > >in the context of the very interesting way in which this word is > > > >used in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > > > > > > >Greetings, > > > >Norbert > > > >co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://JustNetCoalition.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Steeringcommittee mailing list > Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org > http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/steeringcommittee_justnet > c > oalition.org _______________________________________________ Steeringcommittee mailing list Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org http://justnetcoalition.org/mailman/listinfo/steeringcommittee_justnetcoalit ion.org From mueller at syr.edu Tue Mar 10 12:29:11 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:29:11 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Democracy (was Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference") In-Reply-To: <20150310092548.6f531be9@quill> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20150310092548.6f531be9@quill> Message-ID: <8ffde96a1cf64132b81d0c378232ade5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > The literal meaning of δημοκρατία (dēmokratía), in modern language > "democracy", is that "it's the people who have the power to rule". This is > since ancient times seen in contrast to "the rule of an elite", the ancient > Greek term for the latter being ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratía). And in that respect none of us really supports "democracy" do we? if it means that 'the people' (and who is that, exactly?) has the power to hang us without trial (it's called lynching in America), suppress minority viewpoints, etc. It's also true that we do have a choice other than elite rule and mob rule: rule of law. > How democratic governance, in the sense of that literal meaning, is to be > implemented in an increasingly globalized and increasingly ICT-based world > (of which the Internet is nowadays already a rather central aspect, and it is > widely expected that the centrality of the Internet will continue to grow), > that is something that requires discussion and consensus building. Yes, but it requires a hell of a lot more than discussion and consensus building. The definition of a 'people' with the ability to rule requires a substantial institutional infrastructure, as I argued in my last post. But you seem to accept this argument further down in your post so I won't belabor it. > In fact much of what goes wrong in the governance of national states which > are democratic (or which at least claim to be democratic) can be blamed on > the fact that even in such states (despite all the checks and balances and > other good countermeasures against elites gaining unreasonable power) > there are often still elites which gain a lot of power and abuse it for their > own gain; the resulting anger of the people is then exploited by populists. Interesting that you attribute all the problems with 'democracy' to some small elites, the bad guys, and not to irrational or greedy decisions by 'the people' themselves. So the people can never be wrong, or never be manipulated? > The way to improve political systems in order to reduce this kind of > phenomenon is not to give up on the ideal of democracy, but to implement > it more effectively, so that there will be less abuse of power by elites, and > therefore less public anger, and therefore less opportunity for populists who > will try to exploit such anger whenever they I am not giving up on the ideal of democracy, which to me means popular sovereignty. There are two things missing from these overly simple discussion of democratic governance, however. One is that there is a lot about the internet that we _don't_ want to be centrally governed. Indeed, its resistance to central control is one of the reasons for its success. The other is the role of the market. You can't have a complex, post-industrial society without markets, and yet this kind of choice or self-governance is always unpopular with politicians, whether of democratic or oligarchic stripe, because it limits their power. Furthermore, complex market economies introduce a need for expertise in regulation. Regulation or intervention in markets that is politically popular but ill-informed can be utterly disastrous, as various financial crises ranging from the great depression to the 2008 mortgage bubble demonstrate. Greek governments who spent more than they had were very popular with 'the people.' Paying the debt is never popular. Since the Internet is a product entirely of market-oriented, neoliberal policies, I am always curious about this huge gap in the thinking of democratic governance advocates. From nb at bollow.ch Tue Mar 10 14:56:25 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:56:25 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Democracy (was Re: Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference") In-Reply-To: <8ffde96a1cf64132b81d0c378232ade5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20150310092548.6f531be9@quill> <8ffde96a1cf64132b81d0c378232ade5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20150310195625.470a4036@quill> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:29:11 +0000 Milton L Mueller wrote: > > The literal meaning of δημοκρατία (dēmokratía), in modern language > > "democracy", is that "it's the people who have the power to rule". > > This is since ancient times seen in contrast to "the rule of an > > elite", the ancient Greek term for the latter being ἀριστοκρατία > > (aristokratía). > > And in that respect none of us really supports "democracy" do we? if > it means that 'the people' (and who is that, exactly?) has the power > to hang us without trial (it's called lynching in America), suppress > minority viewpoints, etc. It's also true that we do have a choice > other than elite rule and mob rule: rule of law. Of course the only way in which "rule of 'the people'" can be implemented is by means of rule of law, with laws which conform to the universal principles which are recognized as human rights, and which implement these human rights besides whatever else 'the people' may decide by means of whatever democratic processes are used for decision-making. No decision which addresses a matter to which human rights are relevant can be democratic if it does not strive to uphold and implement all human rights which are relevant to the decision under consideration. Otherwise it would be a decision which effectively or at least potentially excludes one or more persons (those whose human rights are violated in a significant way) from "the people who have the power to rule". > > How democratic governance, in the sense of that literal meaning, is > > to be implemented in an increasingly globalized and increasingly > > ICT-based world (of which the Internet is nowadays already a rather > > central aspect, and it is widely expected that the centrality of > > the Internet will continue to grow), that is something that > > requires discussion and consensus building. > > Yes, but it requires a hell of a lot more than discussion and > consensus building. Sure. But discussion and consensus building has to be the first part. Otherwise, there will be no clarity in regard to what are the concrete organizational structures that need to be built, and even if someone had all the necessary insights for building good governance structures, any attempts to implement those insights would still fail for lack of acceptance among those who are supposed to make up the relevant polity (by which word I mean: the particular set of "the people" which is relevant to a particular system of democratic governance.) > > In fact much of what goes wrong in the governance of national > > states which are democratic (or which at least claim to be > > democratic) can be blamed on the fact that even in such states > > (despite all the checks and balances and other good countermeasures > > against elites gaining unreasonable power) there are often still > > elites which gain a lot of power and abuse it for their own gain; > > the resulting anger of the people is then exploited by populists. > > Interesting that you attribute all the problems with 'democracy' to > some small elites, the bad guys, and not to irrational or greedy > decisions by 'the people' themselves. So the people can never be > wrong, or never be manipulated? Quite on the contrary: I accept the realities that people can be wrong, irrational and greedy, and that they can potentially be manipulated, as facts of life that no political system can change. And I still advocate for democracy in spite of all that, because the alternatives are much worse. At the same time, I advocate for making governance systems more robust in relation to abuses of various kinds. For example, whatever the politicians who were part of certain previous governments of Greece did to accumulate such a huge debt burden, and whatever happened in the rest of Europe to allow Greece to become part of the Eurozone in spite of the lack of any effective safeguards in that respect, both of these sides of the problem were populist abuses by politicians. In fact, when we have a governance system in which such abuses occur, that governance system does not qualify as democratic in those regards. Sure, measures which lead to unsustainable state debt may be popular with current voters, but the people of future generations had no say. Whatever happens, people of future generations are going to be adversely affected in quite significant ways: Either in Greece, or elsewhere (in the case that other countries take on a major part of that debt), or everywhere (for example in the case that the debt is made to disappear through some abuse of the sovereign power of governments, which IMO would certainly cause a major financial crisis.) So I don't blame Greek voters because we can't change their human nature. I also don't blame Greek politicians and I don't blame the Greek corporate executives who are tangled up with them (as far as I know not with the current Greek government, but with those previous Greek governments which ran up that enormous public debt). We can't change their human nature either. But political system can and therefore must be changed to make it much more robust to function appropriately in real life, where all the ugly realities of human nature will be present, only waiting for opportunities to manifest themselves. > > The way to improve political systems in order to reduce this kind of > > phenomenon is not to give up on the ideal of democracy, but to > > implement it more effectively, so that there will be less abuse of > > power by elites, and therefore less public anger, and therefore > > less opportunity for populists who will try to exploit such anger > > whenever they > > I am not giving up on the ideal of democracy, which to me means > popular sovereignty. There are two things missing from these overly > simple discussion of democratic governance, however. Actually I'll freely agree that there are many aspects which I haven't discussed in my recent posting. Many more than just those two aspects which you point out below. > One is that there is a lot about the internet that we _don't_ want to > be centrally governed. Indeed, its resistance to central control is > one of the reasons for its success. > > The other is the role of the market. You can't have a complex, > post-industrial society without markets, and yet this kind of choice > or self-governance is always unpopular with politicians, whether of > democratic or oligarchic stripe, because it limits their power. > Furthermore, complex market economies introduce a need for expertise > in regulation. Regulation or intervention in markets that is > politically popular but ill-informed can be utterly disastrous, as > various financial crises ranging from the great depression to the > 2008 mortgage bubble demonstrate. Greek governments who spent more > than they had were very popular with 'the people.' Paying the debt is > never popular. Since the Internet is a product entirely of > market-oriented, neoliberal policies, I am always curious about this > huge gap in the thinking of democratic governance advocates. Of course misguided governance can do harm. Governance which attempts regulation of aspects of human activity for which no regulation is needed is typically especially harmful, regardless of whether it otherwise achieves its intended purpose or not. I would however insist that in all cases of any doubt or dispute, it must be decided democratically what precisely those aspects of human activity are which need formal regulation and which are the aspects which don't need regulation. These democratic decision processes must of course take into account human rights and they must take into account the reality of change. Areas of activity which don't need regulation today might need it tomorrow, and vice versa. Bureaucracies tend to have a strong bias in the direction of always wanting to expand themselves, which sometimes results in them being advocates for more and heavier regulation. Lawyers as a group benefit from increasing complexity of the law. Politicians and unelected government officials have tendencies of being overly supportive of the desires of big businesses whose lobbyists invite them to a good lunch or dinner. (Illegitimate desires expressed by lobbyists can go in the direction of deregulation, to allow companies to act with unlimited irresponsibility, or in the direction of regulation which would hinder new market entrants, or regulation which would prevent or at least delay structural change.) All of these are "human nature of elites" effects of the kind that I discussed. When discussing governance systems, we need to be aware of human nature in relation to how people tend to act when given the opportunity to act in a way that would benefit them personally or a group that they see themselves as part of, even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. I see it as part of what is implied by the literal meaning of the word "democracy" that the opportunities to give in to this kind of temptations must be minimized. Greetings, Norbert From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com Tue Mar 10 18:11:03 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:11:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality in the next Internet - NDN In-Reply-To: <21758.10718.479914.554364@world.std.com> References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <54F06331.9050007@veni.com> <54F0F395.4050005@gih.com> <4AF53A50-9778-4AAE-B753-95FB73541FCE@frobbit.se> <54F1835A.8020601@gih.com> <00d701d0534c$85b3d700$911b8500$@ch> <54F1AEEE.4040900@meetinghouse.net> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli nk.ca> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <50FF5DFD-2DE4-4B46-A900-EEF891B78635@difference.com.au> <21758.10718.479914.554364@world.std.com> Message-ID: <54FF6BF7.8080202@gmail.com> Hello Barry, I have read the text in Wikipedia. And my result: NDN is an is an overload of the stupid, underlying transport system. "Its premise is that the Internet is primarily used as an information distribution network, which is not a good match for IP, and that the future Internet's "thin waist" should be based on named data rather than numerically addressed hosts." All communications and access of data are personal oriented. The people communicate. The people exchange her data. This is the function. And we do it with a transport system for our digital data. And before we think about our data format formats or any virtual identifier, we have to organize a good transport system. This is all. The rest organize the people themselves. many greetings, willi Am 09/03/2015 um 07:16 p.m. schrieb Barry Shein: > > First, the name is not "Van Johansen", it is "Van Jacobson", I know > Van, he is very smart and has made great contributions to the > development of networking technology. He deserves to have his name > right! > > The architecture being discussed is described here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking > > where they call it "Named Data Networking". > > The basic idea is straightforward enough: > > Currently you access information on the internet by identifying its > location, usually indirectly. > > Ultimately that location is identifed by an IP address such as > 192.74.137.5. > > *** IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN NOW SKIP FROM HERE **** > > We usually don't use those directly so instead we might start with a > domain name such as www.TheWorld.com which DNS translates to that IP > address. Or a URI such as http://www.TheWorld.com (possibly with > further qualification.) > > As a further indirection we might discover that is what we want via a > search engine or link in another document but nonetheless the goal is > that IP address no matter how many levels of indirection it takes to > arrive there. > > At a lower level, once identified (located), our packets are routed to > that IP address probably passing through one or more routers. > > That is how the internet works currently, in brief other than how > routing itself works. > > *** TO HERE **** > > IN THE PROPOSED scheme, Named Data Networking: > > A unit of information, say an online book or movie, is identified not > by its location but by its content in some way. > > *** YOU MIGHT BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL *** > > *** OR YOU CAN SKIP TO HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN *** > > So, for example, if I wanted to watch "Gone With The Wind" rather than > somehow (which is key!) discovering that I can watch it via the > Netflix service and locating netflix.com, etc I would simply say > something like "movie:gone with the wind" because that would be how it > is stored. > > At some low level its location still has to be identified but I think > the key concept is that I, as the consumer, have not identified that > location (e.g., netflix.com). I only identified what it is I want, > that movie (or book, etc.) > > So in the proposed scheme you remove (or supplement) the interface > everyone currently uses -- namely chasing down and identifying the > location of data -- which is done, ultimately, via IP address (and > routing to/from that address) and identify what you want only by its > content. > > That is, again, rather than netflix.com and so forth you would only > say something like "move:gone with the wind" and let the mechanics of > the system get that for you. > > You can read the wikipedia page for more detail. The devil is > certainly in the details of how this might be implemented and used. > > *** AS PROMISED: HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN *** > > It's not really like a CDN because CDNs are still answering requests > for data identified by location, they just are serving as a > short-circuit. > > ** YOU MIGHT REALLY BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL *** > > That is, rather than proceeding to that location the CDN's nodes > intervene and respond with the location's content. > > So if I want CNN's front page I say http://www.cnn.com and the CDN > intercepts that and says "here it is!" without my request having to > actually travel all the way to wherever CNN's servers lie. > > But in a CDN you're still identifying content in terms of its > location. > > As an extreme example if for some reason (e.g., hijacking!) CNN's > front page had only a copy of Gone With The Wind that's what the CDN > would hand you. > > The CDN has no inherent understanding that you requested that location > because you wanted to see news headlines, you never said that, it was > only implied because you happen to know www.cnn.com should contain > news headlines. > > The CDN only knows you requested whatever is at www.cnn.com, a > location, and handed you its contents presumably from a closer > (network-wise) location in the hope that is faster and reduces traffic > across the internet's backbone and the remote CNN servers. > > But you will get whatever is at that location you named, you don't > indicate what you want. > > *** EVERYTHING BELOW IS JUST QUOTED TEXT FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGES *** > *** AN ANNOYING CUSTOM ON THESE LISTS BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT TO *** > *** INCORPORATE PREVIOUS MESSAGE TEXT ONLY BY REFERENCE! *** > > From: David Cake >Is it just me, or does this > just sound like a very mild generalisation of t= >he idea of CDNs like > Akamai (similar services provided through Amazons AWS)= >? A concept > already in use by most large internet media providers? >> >> It does interact with net neutrality policy in some ways. A lot of the netw= >> ork neutrality debate can get into detailed discussion of when it is approp= >> riate for an ISP to charge for bandwidth, and if some bandwidth providers a= >> re heavily buffered this can make a difference (especially in situations wh= >> ere some hops, such as international links, are much more expensive to prov= >> ide). >> >> Cheers >> >> David >> >> On 3 Mar 2015, at 12:02 am, nathalie coupet wrot= >> e: >> >>> According to Van Johansen (Slow-start algorythm), the Internet should cha= >> nge from a ''conversational" architecture with connections between two node= >> s at a time, to a content-based architecture that would use the memory stor= >> ed in the infrastructure through leveraging the existing buffering occurrin= >> g at each hop, in order to send content to a very great number of addresses= >> at the same time. >>> Thus, Netflix would be able to send its content to great number of househ= >> olds not from a single address point, but from everywhere to everywhere. >>> =20 >>> Could someone explain in more detail exactly to what buffering he is refe= >> rring to, and how it would affect Net Neutrality? >>> =20 >>> Thanks, >>> =20 >>> Nathalie >>> =20 >>> From: Gary Kenward >>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>> Cc: internetpolicy >>> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 10:19 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be defined neutrally >>> =20 >>> Having worked with those telcos on Internet service models I can assure y= >> ou that their goal is to maximize their return on investment. And their pri= >> mary objective is to move up the food chain and become application service = >> and content providers (e.g. Crave.tv). >>> =20 >>> To be clear, for me working with the telecom industry was not a generally= >> satisfying experience. I still cannot get over the fact that we can delive= >> r Mordecai on-demand to a large number of house-holds, not to mention pictu= >> res of cats, food,...while our first responders have to deal with 20+ year = >> old communications technology. >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose. >>> =20 >>> The information contained in this document is private and confidential. T= >> his document is not to >>> be copied, printed or re-distributed without the explicit permission of t= >> he author. >>> =20 >>> On Mar 1, 2015, at 05:34, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> =20 >>>> The other thing that strikes me from the later part of this thread about= >> business models is this: >>>> =20 >>>> To what extent would the large telcos who don't like the FCC's NN decisi= >> on change their view if they weren't for-profit companies? >>>> =20 >>>> You would have to imagine that at least some of the very strong oppositi= >> on from the Verizons and AT&Ts are because they want to maximise return, an= >> d charging services for priority is another way to maximise return. >>>> =20 >>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Miles Fidelman wr= >> ote: >>>> =20 >>>>> At least in the states, there are lots of examples of very well run mun= >> icipal electric utilities (about 18% cheaper on average, too), and that's w= >> ho's branching into telecom - they need the data nets for SCADA and meterin= >> g and such, and once you start putting people on poles to run wires.... Abo= >> ut the only places you can get gigE FTTH in the states, are from a small nu= >> mber of munis. Munis are also a very far cry from utilities run by a nation= >> al government. >>>>> =20 >>>>> The problem with telecom, as with most utilities, comes down to right-o= >> f-ways -- there's a real first-mover advantage, after you've got pole space= >> and buildout, it's very hard for competition to move in. >>>>> =20 >>>>> Gary W Kenward wrote: >>>>>> I agree that monopolies are bad, for all market sectors. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> However, I still remember how bad the state run telephone services wer= >> e in Canada and Europe, and I haven=92t seen anything that would suggest to= >> day=92s governments would do any better in providing packet carrier service= >> s, particularly at the municipal level. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> The right approach is to begin with a revitalization of fair competiti= >> on laws. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> G >>>>>> */ >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> /* >>>>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. >>>>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PE= >> RMISSION OF ADROIT TECHNOLOGIC. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> On 2015.02.28, at 09:30, Miles Fidelman > ailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote: >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> It's called municipal broadband. >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> Seriously - private, monoploy (or duopoly) utilities is just a bad mo= >> del. >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> Miles Fidelman >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>>>>> It seems to me there's a good argument for cooperative and not-for-p= >> rofit models for ISPs. >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 13:54, Veni Markovski > @veni.com> > wrote: >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> By the way , when my company was investing in development and build= >> ing our own network in Bulgaria, the price of fiber and cat-5 cables was ve= >> ry high. Yet we did it, and provided affordable internet for all. But we di= >> dn't have shareholders to ask us to cut expenses and increase profits... >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, ac5jw . > lto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> This reminds me of the earlier times when we had that issue of >>>>>>>>> who paid for telephone calls. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> The conflict was that people who received telephone calls on >>>>>>>>> their mobile devices would get billed and charged for minutes and >>>>>>>>> for money when they received calls that they were unable to give >>>>>>>>> informed consent to in advance. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> The discussion of late on paying for services seems to follow >>>>>>>>> these lines. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> I am sure that the taxpayers are funding for some basic >>>>>>>>> telecommunications services to include Internet and that the >>>>>>>>> funding goes directly to telecommunications providers to maintain >>>>>>>>> a common system. At a minimum, all American taxpayers already >>>>>>>>> funding for the federal users of the Internet. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> I do not see having users on the Internet as a problem, because >>>>>>>>> the Internet serves them. I do have a problem with >>>>>>>>> double-dipping, where the man in the middle (providing the >>>>>>>>> communications) chooses to charge both entities higher and higher >>>>>>>>> rates while selling access to a common system of communication. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> I am concerned that at some point, the costs of provisioning and >>>>>>>>> building the system are amortized away and the resulting high >>>>>>>>> charges would just line the pockets of investors, service >>>>>>>>> providers, and speculators without going to improve the >>>>>>>>> infrastructure for everyone, to include new users coming online. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> I believe that net neutrality should consider the issue of >>>>>>>>> infrastructure delay and retardation because it ultimately >>>>>>>>> disserves the purpose of net neutrality. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> If the infrastructure is indeed improved upon, meaning more >>>>>>>>> bandwidth comes available and more users can access it, then the >>>>>>>>> service providers will continue to receive some taxpayer funding >>>>>>>>> and even a larger customer base for newly established private >>>>>>>>> accounts on the improved infrastructure. This might even be >>>>>>>>> considered a win-win opportunity for all to benefit. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Amateur Earth Station AC5JW >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Miles >>>>>>>>> Fidelman> .net>>wrote: >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Lack of competition, action by the incumbents to block new >>>>>>>>> competition, and action by the incumbents to favor their own >>>>>>>>> content services. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Miles Fidelman >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Richard Hill wrote: >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Indeed, as I understand it, the FCC has intervened in the >>>>>>>>> US because of the lack of competition in that country. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> *From:*InternetPolicy >>>>>>>>> [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Veni Markovski >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:41 >>>>>>>>> *To:* Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m >>>>>>>>> *Cc:*internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org > @elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be >>>>>>>>> defined neutrally >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> +1, as an ISP, we always wanted to build and offer more >>>>>>>>> bandwidth - not last reason was because our competitors >>>>>>>>> were doing the same. In the USA there's practically no >>>>>>>>> real competition - you choose between the cable company >>>>>>>>> (formerly tv), and the phone company (usually one). When >>>>>>>>> I moved there, I wanted to continue with my business, but >>>>>>>>> turned out regulations are made in such a way that they >>>>>>>>> don't allow competition. As a matter of fact, this past >>>>>>>>> week I saw a message that the government would allow the >>>>>>>>> creation of municipal networks, and the telcos protest as >>>>>>>>> this will be unfair competition... >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m >>>>>>>>> > .se>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>> On 28 feb 2015, at 09:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>> Is this really what happens? Is the ball solely in the >>>>>>>>> ISP court? I'd >>>>>>>>>> tend to think the responsibility is shared these days. >>>>>>>>> The explosion of >>>>>>>>>> video services has shown an incredible growth in >>>>>>>>> traffic which, if I was >>>>>>>>>> an ISP, I'd find very difficult to follow. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Why? A user can not use more than what the ISP connect >>>>>>>>> them with. If you get 1Mbps from your ISP you can not use >>>>>>>>> more than 1Mbps, right? >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>> Look at Netflix for example - >>>>>>>>>> accounting for 35% of all US Internet traffic during >>>>>>>>> peak periods? >>>>>>>>>> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/11/21/netflix-now-accounts-35-over= >> all-us-internet-traffic/ >>>>>>>>>> Does it pay fairly for all of this traffic? >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Sure, for an ISP an IP packet is an IP packet. Customers >>>>>>>>> want to use more of them so the ISP can sell more of them. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Once again, the issue you point at is that users get >>>>>>>>> 100Mbps (for example) and earlier used 1Mbps but now uses >>>>>>>>> 10Mbps. This implies the traffic in the network have >>>>>>>>> increased with a multiplier of 10 but the ISP do not get >>>>>>>>> more money. Simply because what the user uses is >>>>>>>>> unexpected but still "within" the product that the ISP >>>>>>>>> actually have sold. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Note: I am not blaming the ISP for doing the wrong thing. >>>>>>>>> I am just explaining what I see the issue is. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> If an ISP has sold "up to 100Mbps" and users earlier did >>>>>>>>> use 1Mbps, but now 10Mbps, why would the ISP get money >>>>>>>>> from Netflix because the 9Mbps unexpected traffic is to >>>>>>>>> Netflix? Netflix already pays for the 9Mbps to their data >>>>>>>>> centers. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Patrik >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Veni >>>>>>>>> http://veni.com >>>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski >>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above >>>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of >>>>>>>>> any organizations, associated >>>>>>>>> with or related to him in >>>>>>>>> any given way. >>>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =3D=3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are >>>>>>>>> caused by the touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the >>>>>>>>> reason for using short words and phrases. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account >>>>>>>>> menu. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Veni >>>>>>>>> http://veni.com >>>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski >>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above >>>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of >>>>>>>>> any organizations, associated >>>>>>>>> with or related to him in >>>>>>>>> any given way. >>>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =3D=3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by t= >> he touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the reason for using short words and = >> phrases. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> -- >>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>> =20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>> =20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>> =20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>> =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 > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Mar 10 21:28:58 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 18:28:58 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <99A63972-A90D-4432-B342-5F3AF63BB377@difference.com.au> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <856729e9948c96ef0cfe8ecc77d0af4d.squirrel@secure.symonds.net> <105e01d056ac$afa675f0$0ef361d0$@gmail.com> <513BF6D4-8248-4B02-B534-DC7B11777086@eff.org> <20150305104646.0804da36@quill> <54F83172.8080209@apc.org> <04d501d05755$bd4f1e60$37ed5b20$@gmail.com> <54F8AD21.7090501@apc.org> <092c01d05786$05274c00$0f75e400$@gmail.com> <54F8D724.3080802@apc.org> <00d701d0579a$ef5660e0$ce0322a0$@gmail.com> <99A63972-A90D-4432-B342-5F3AF63BB377@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <00e801d05b9a$bfb51030$3f1f3090$@gmail.com> David, The issue is not simply about not being able to reach consensus although of course, that is one significant issue of conflict. Others include disputes over internal rules governing stakeholder groups, rules governing MS processes themselves, rules governing the creation of stakeholder decision frameworks and so on and so on. These issues aren't necessarily about differences of opinion concerning the (policy) issues at hand so much as they are about managing decision structures which are organized on the basis of "interests" rather than (for example) "constituencies". Since MS processes are inherently "interest" based then the resolution of disputes/conflicts tends to be a matter of who is stronger, richer, more powerful, (or perhaps in the technical sphere-more knowledgeable, technically proficient etc.) and thus can ensure that their "interests" prevail. The "fairness" principle that one could invoke in a democratic context makes little sense in an interest based stakeholder context. You asked for examples of disputes/conflicts within MS processes which were not reasonably (or dare I say fairly) resolved and I previously in this discussion at least twice pointed to several including: https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/multistakeholderism-vs-democracy-m y-adventures-in-stakeholderland/ One from the much vaunted and now almost sanctified Sao Paulo NM meeting: I should also note that the much vaunted model multistakeholder process at the NetMundial event in Brazil did more or less precisely the same thing--giving over to an unrepresentative and more or less completely non-transparent academic (stakeholder) grouping -- GIGAnet -- responsibility for "academic" participation in the various NM structures. GIGAnet then went on to assign all of the relevant places to GIGAnet insiders over the objections of the academic component of the Community Informatics community (a grouping numbering some 1500 of which perhaps 40% are academics or researchers with a professional interest in ICTs and Development, a subject more or less completely absent in the GIGAnet membership). These actions were confirmed by the silence of the NM organizers (the unreasonableness and unfairness of this was brought firmly to their attention on several occasions). The direct consequence of this was that the NM meeting and subsequent document more or less completely ignores the significant issues involved in ICTs and Development and which moreover were as I'm sure you know, the fundamental driver of WSIS of which the NM was meant to be some sort of a lineal descendent. And as a third example perhaps I could point to the basis of this discussion itself, the purportedly "multistakeholder process" for developing the Outcome Statement of the UNESCO conference. an aside, if anyone is still wondering how MS decision processes might actually operate in practice, one need only reflect on the processes of decision making that went into this purportedly multistakeholder Output Document -- the highly questionable and completely non-transparent selection of the editorial committee (from a small circle of the Internet Governance elite), where potentially critical but equally qualified participants were excluded, where dissenting voices and positions were suppressed, with a complete lack of accountability to presumed constituencies or "stakeholder" groups, and where the outcome was presented quite falsely as a "consensus" document and output of the associated meeting." Also, you asked for a positive example. let me try to give you one that just passed by my field of vision. I'm working with some groups in the Philippines and elsewhere in the area of Open Government data. The intent here is multiple but in this particular context the intent is to get access to government data to facilitate grassroots advocates in intervening into processes concerning the allocation of education funds. The Government of the Philippines has evidently enacted legislation that mandates what they are calling a process of "constructive engagement" which is activity by government to work in partnership with and to facilitate and support the activities of civil society (and presumably the private sector) to accomplish objectives which are agreed upon to be in the public interest. Here the democratic processes has resulted in the definition of rules which will allow for the effective engagement of public servants with the range of stakeholder groups, in this, case concerned with grassroots education budgeting. I'm not sure how applicable the lessons (or modalities) here are applicable to IG issues (and of course, I've oversimplified a quite complex and somewhat localized set of processes) but I'm struck at how this democratic governmental system is finding ways of responding to some of the dilemma's amd complexities which MSism is purporting to resolve but within an overall framework which is both democratic and one that ensures an overall control in support of the public interest. M From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: March 9, 2015 11:30 PM To: Michael Gurstein Cc: Shawna Finnegan; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" On 6 Mar 2015, at 7:20 am, Michael Gurstein > wrote: Further before entering into these kinds of "games" I want to know how they will work under conditions of conflict and stress and not just in conditions of presumed harmony and good will. My observation is that MS processes do not work very well at all when there is conflict which is a major problem given that the basis of the approach is one where participants are involved specifically because they come from different contexts with presumably different interests which will inevitably result in conflicts of various kinds. It is certainly true that multi-stakeholder processes do not work well in situations in which consensus absolutely cannot be reached. Conflict and consensus are different things, however - getting a group of conflicted parties together knowing that they only way they can ensure their priorities are represented in the final outcome is by being part of a consensus is a very good mechanism for resolving conflict. My observation is that when a MS process is subject to conflict or stress it immediately reverts to a defensive and control mode where privileged insiders close ranks, extrude the conflict (and its individual sources) and proceed as though nothing had occurred - in this way they are achieving consensus (which is of course the goal) but a consensus which reflects nothing more than the capacity of insiders to find a way of reconciling (and satisfying) insider's interests and eliminating the need to respond to divergent positions and interests. It would be helpful if you could point to examples where you think this has occurred. I'm not disagreeing per se, there are cases where the situation you describe, or something like it occurs, though I wouldn't characterise it the same way. For example, when one participant threatens to walk away from a process because they don't get the outcome they want, then sure, other participants may close ranks to minimise damage to the forum itself, in which all have some investment - but this isn't always negative. I would say the answer here is to ensure that such fora are open enough that the power of 'insiders' is minimised, and those who feel their interests would be harmed are able to remedy their concerns by becoming participants. Finally, I see no evident mechanisms to prevent elite capture--capture by elites within individual stakeholder groups since these groups have in most cases no obvious internal structures for ensuring appropriate levels of effective accountability/representivity, and capture by social/economic elites since these have the resources to participate and "manage" these processes in a way which no non-economic elite will be able to do in the absence of some form of external (state based) structures of enforcing accountability, transparency etc. I always find the way in which this form of analysis makes civil society participants (many of whom are doing so on a volunteer basis and supporting themselves by other means, and most of whom are chronically under funded and overworked) part of a social/economic elite that have captured the process for their own purposes. But of course I agree that we could improve effective accountability and representability, though I acknowledge that the latter is proving difficult in practice. But the real issue here is the obvious massive statist bias here - why should we assume that states, many of which have a long history of corruption, and many of which clearly have enormous problems with transparency, are the only effective means of enforcing accountability and transparency? Again, we are asked to believe that states are the only effective means of ensuring these things, but when processes like the TPPA and TTIP are shown as clear massive failures of transparency and accountability, I doubt we will have an answer. In the sphere of Internet Governance we are talking about decisions which ultimately will impact billions and even trillions of dollars of value. Do you really think that an under or non-resourced civil society (or government such as those found in many LDC's for that matter) will be able to resist the kind of resources which can and will be deployed to game those decision making processes in favour of elite and dominant interests. I say only that we will have more chance of getting a better result from open transparent processes than we do from government led trade processes. There has to be more than a negative critique of multi-stakeholder processes here - there needs to be a contrasting positive example. So far, the obvious examples of government led processes in the same policy area are pretty much all clearly worse. You have to show an example decision making process that is clearly better, not imagine a process that you think would be better if it existed. Regards David I think you may have too high expectations for democracy. The US government (along with Canada, the UK, and many other colonizing global powers) has been violating human rights and destroying societies long before 'multi-stakeholder' started to look like a paradigm. [MG] Yes, no question but that suggests to me the need to redouble efforts to make democratic governance more effective and responsive rather than tossing it out on the faint hope that something (anything) might be better. Multi-stakeholder governance is, in my opinion, an extension of democratic pluralism. [MG] A form of pluralism perhaps, but I fail to see where the "democratic" comes in. perhaps you could explain. Powerful interests capture multi-stakeholder processes in much the same way as democratic processes. [MG] Yes, very likely but with democratic processes there is at least the possibility of rectification. With legitimized control by powerful (corporate) interests there is no possibility that I can see at rectification. Those interests are in fact legally obliged (under current law) to maximize their individual interests whatever the collective good. I can lobby my government, organize protests and voter campaigns to (possibly) achieve desired ends - how exactly do I influence Google or Disney or. for Google I can't even find a phone number let alone how I might possibly impact on a decision that they have made or are making. But I agree that we need new and more effective means for achieving democratic accountability and better and more inclusive and responsive structures of democratic decision making-but tossing out hard won rights and gains that have been achieved over a thousand years and much much blood and struggle for an undefined "pig in a poke" doesn't seem to me to be a very good social trade off to be making. Going back to a previous comment you made in this thread, I am surprised to read that you would advocate for any conventional civil society grouping to shun an organization that did not actively endorse democracy as a fundamental principle. Justice is a fundamental principle. Democracy is a system of government. In practice, that system has been used as a tool to placate us and legitimize powerful interests. [MG] See above but also it is necessary to separate the mechanics and structures of democratic governance from the norms and principles of democracy. Individual instances of supposed democratic governance may have failed or been misused or misdirected but that doesn't mean that the aspiration of the people towards self-governance, empowerment, and social justice is not an appropriate aspiration which is to be lightly and cavalierly rejected in favour of governance by self-selected (and ultimately self-serving) elites. I very much agree that decisions made by civil society organizations now, even if through non-action, will have significant consequences long-term. And I agree that sometimes civil society need to walk out of negotiations. Perhaps we should have red lines. That is an important discussion to have. [MG] yes.. BTW, I am hearing you arguing in favour of Multistakeholder governance as an appropriate mode for Internet (and presumably) other areas of governance. Is this the official position of APC? M Shawna On 15-03-05 01:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Thanks Shawna/Anriette, and welcome to this discussion... > > Just a couple of things... > > An individual or organization with convictions is judged by its > willingness to say "no", to walk away when those convictions have been > trampled upon... In this case the rejection of "democracy" as a > qualifier for Internet Governance is I think a clear challenge, to > one's convictions concerning the significance of democracy in the > context of Internet Governance. APC could (and in my opinion > should) walk away from situations where there is a clear denial of > democracy as a fundamental governance principle. > > Similarly, the acceptance or rejection of choices is a clear > indication of preferences... In this case the acceptance of > "multistakeholderism" where "democracy" had been rejected is a clear > indication of what appear to be the preferences of those who signed on > to, or otherwise accepted the Outcome Statement. Thus where there is a > clear choice, MSism is evidently the preferred option for those who > signed on to this agreement. > > And please be aware that this is not trivial... > > The USG has made it quite clear in a variety of contexts that they see > MSism as their preferred paradigm for global governance in the wide > variety of areas going forward (notably of course not in > security/surveillance). Thus accepting the elimination of "democracy" > as a necessary element of Internet Governance is a pre-figuration of > what we can expect in the range of other areas requiring global > decision making in the future. Is this APC's preferred position? > > The manner in which MSism operates in practice is a form of governance > by elites. A prioritization of MSism by APC and others means that the > necessary explorations of how democratic governance can most > effectively operate in the Internet age is deferred if not completely > ignored, of course further empowering the elites and the 1%. Again is > this APC's preferred position? > > So decisions made by APC now, even if they are done through non-action > rather than action will contribute to very significant consequences in > the longer term and again I repeat my question -- "has APC (and others > who are so blithely jumping on the MS > bandwagon) debated and then agreed to favour notions of > multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of their > own normative structures...? > > Best, > > M > > > -----Original Message----- From: Shawna Finnegan > [ mailto:shawna at apc.org] Sent: March 5, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michael > Gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Remarks at > UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > Dear Michael, > > While I am not active in these lists, I do try to follow the > discussion, and would like to take the opportunity to respond to your > question about whether APC has debated and agreed to favour notions of > 'multistakeholderism' over a commitment to democracy. > > In the 3+ years that I have worked with APC, my experience has been > that we debate the strengths and weaknesses of various > multi-stakeholder spaces on an ongoing basis, and discuss whether it > is strategic to engage in those spaces. At the same time, we support > our members to advocate for changes in laws and policies, and actively > engage in intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Human Rights > Council. > > Moreover, when there is opportunity to contribute to ongoing > discussion about multistakeholder processes and 'enhanced > cooperation', APC has emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation > is a means to achieve inclusive democratic internet > governance: > > "Multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself, it is a > means to achieve the end of inclusive democratic internet governance > that enables the internet to be a force, to quote from the Geneva > Declaration, for "the attainment of a more peaceful, just and > prosperous world." > > (from our submission: > http ://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_10092013.pdf > ) > > There is no agreement to favour notions of 'multistakeholderism' > over a commitment to democracy because the dilemma is false. APC > engages where we see the opportunity to positively affect change. > > Shawna > > On 15-03-05 08:04 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Pardon my "tone" Anriette, but I find a UN document signed off on by >> significant elements of Civil Society which excludes reference to >> "democracy" in favour of the vague and non-defined terminology of >> "multistakeholderism >> < https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-multistakeholder-model-neo-lib eralism-and-global-internet-governance/>" >> >> > >> and which equally excludes references in any way supportive of social >> justice along with a rationalization of this because of "lack of >> space" and presumptions of "conceptual baggage", as quite "demeaning" >> of all those who were in any way a party to this travesty. >> >> >> >> This combined with the non-transparency of the selection of the >> responsible parties and of their deliberative activities and equally >> of the provenance of the funding support provided for the Civil >> Society component who were able to attend this event and thus provide >> the overall framework of legitimacy for this output document should I >> think raise alarm bells among any with a degree of independent >> concern for how normative structures are evolving (or "being >> evolved") in this sphere. >> >> >> >> BTW, has APC debated and then agreed to favour notions of >> multistakeholderism over a commitment to democracy as part of its own >> normative structures as I queried in my previous email? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [ mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette >> Esterhuysen Sent: March 5, 2015 2:36 AM To: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting >> the Dots Conference" >> >> >> >> Dear all >> >> >> >> Just an explanation and some context. >> >> >> >> I was on the 'coordinating committee' of the event. Our role was to >> review comments on the draft statement and support the chair and >> secretariat in compiling drafts. >> >> >> >> The final UNESCO outcome document did include the vast majority of >> text/proposals submitted by civil society beforehand and onsite. >> >> >> >> This includes text submitted by Richard Hill on behalf of JNC >> (Richard made several editorial suggestions which improved the >> text) and text from Anita Gurumurthy from IT for Change (which >> greatly improved weakened language on gender in the pre-final draft). >> >> >> >> The text on 'social and economic rights' were not excluded for any >> reason other than it came during the final session and the >> Secretariat were trying to keep the document short and linked >> directly to the Study. >> >> It was decided to elaborate on the links to broader rights, and to >> UNESCO needing to work with other rights bodies, in the final study >> report rather than in the outcome statement. >> >> >> >> Again, not ideal from my perspective, but that was the outcome of the >> discussion. >> >> >> >> It is a pity that 'democratic' was not added, but it was never really >> an option. I personally, and APC, support linking democratic to >> multistakeholder and we were happy that this happened in the >> NETmundial statement. And reading Norbert's text below (thanks for >> that Norbert) I would like to find a way to make sure that the >> meaning of democratic However, in the UN IG context there is a very >> particular angle to why "democratic multistakeholder" is so >> contentious. In the Tunis Agenda the word "democratic" is directly >> linked with the word "multilateral" - every time it occurs. This >> means that people/governments who feel that 'multilateral' can be >> used to diminish the recognition given to the importance of >> multistakeholder participation, and take the debate back >> intergovernmental oversight of IG, will not agree to having >> 'democratic' >> >> in front of multistakeholder. >> >> >> >> In the context of these UN type negotiations it will be code for >> reinserting multilateral (in the meaning of 'among governments') into >> the text. >> >> >> >> At the NETmundial we had to fight for 'democratic multistakeholder', >> but because it is a 'new' text we succeeded. >> >> >> >> The thing with documents that come out of the UN system is that they >> are full of invisible 'hyperlinks' to previous documents and >> political struggles that play themselves out in multiple spaces. >> >> >> >> I actually looked for a quote from the Tunis Agenda that we could >> insert (at Richard's suggestion) to see if I could find a reference >> to democratic that is not linked to 'multilateral' but I could not >> find this quote, and I showed this to Richard and warned him that >> unfortunately 'democratic' will most likely not be included. >> >> >> >> I can confirm that the editing group did consider this seriously, but >> that the number of objections to this text were far greater than the >> number of requests for putting it in. >> >> >> >> This is simply in the nature of consensus texts that are negotiated >> in this way. >> >> >> >> There was also much stronger text on anonymity and encryption as >> fundamental enablers of online privacy and freedom of expression in >> the early draft. But it had to be toned down on the insistence of the >> government of Brazil as the Brazilian constitution states that >> anonymity is illegitimate. >> >> >> >> Civil society never succeeds in getting everything it wants in >> documents we negotiate with governments. We have to evaluate the >> gains vs. the losses. >> >> >> >> In my view the gains in this document outweighs the losses. >> Supporting it means that we have UN agency who has a presence in the >> global south who will put issues that are important to us on its >> agenda, which will, I hope, create the opportunity for more people >> from civil society, particularly from developing countries, to learn, >> participate and influence internet-related debates with >> policy-makers. >> >> >> >> Michael, as for your tone, and your allegations. I don't really know >> what to say about them. They are false, they are destructive and they >> demean not only the work of the civil society organisations or >> individuals you name, but also the work - and what I believe to be >> the values - of the Just Net Coalition. >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 05/03/2015 11:46, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 02:27:14 +0100 >> >>> Jeremy Malcolm < > jmalcolm at eff.org > >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Mar 4, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Michael Gurstein >> < mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Perhaps we could have an explanation from Jeremy and others on the >> >>>>> drafting committee as to when and how "democracy" and "social and >> >>>>> economic rights' became unacceptable terms in a document meant to >> >>>>> have global significance? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> With pleasure. This is why: >> >>>> >> >>>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/unesco-resists-jncs-attempt-to >>>> - >>>> >>>> t >> >>>> urn-democracy-against-ordinary-internet-users >> >>> >> >>> I would like to hereby state clearly that what Jeremy claims is >>> JNC's >> >>> view of "democratic multi-stakeholderism" is not an actual position >>> of >> >>> JNC. >> >>> >> >>> For JNC, "democratic" simply means: democratic. >> >>> >> >>> We insist that just like governance at national levels must be >> >>> democratic (which has been internationally accepted as a human >>> right, >> >>> even if there are countries where this is not currently implemented >> >>> satisfactorily), any and all global governance must also be >>> democratic. >> >>> >> >>> JNC's foundational document, the Delhi Declaration, states this 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. >> >>> >> >>> We are opposed to any kind of system in which multistakeholderism is >> >>> implemented in a way that is not democratic. >> >>> >> >>> We are *not* opposed to participative mechanisms for global >>> governance >> >>> of the Internet. In fact we explicitly demand, in our foundational >> >>> document, mechanisms for global governance of the Internet which are >> >>> democratic *and* participative. >> >>> >> >>> This demand has nothing whatsoever to do with what Jeremy claims is >> >>> our goal, which he describes as "limited type of government-led >> >>> rulemaking". That would clearly *not* be participative. >> >>> >> >>> We insist that Internet governance must be democratic *and* >> >>> participative. >> >>> >> >>> Is that so hard to understand??? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The above-mentioned post of Jeremy also links, twice, to an earlier >> >>> blog post of his, and he claims that he has there "revealed ... the >> >>> agenda of the Just Net Coalition". That post happens to be quite >>> full >> >>> of factually false assertions. I have now published my response >>> (which >> >>> had previously been communicated in a non-public manner) at >> >>> >> >>> http://justnetcoalition.org/reply-jeremy-malcolm >> >>> >> >>> Greetings, >> >>> Norbert >> >>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition >> >>> > http://JustNetCoalition.org >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> < mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . To unsubscribe or change your settings, >> visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Tue Mar 3 16:46:53 2015 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 06:46:53 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Net Neutrality in the next Internet In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577920@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <6741EFDD-62D8-4867-95CB-85BC52576A4C@ieee.org> <386494B3-9E9D-4203-8858-2D5EBD30D057@eastlink.ca> <54F519C9.4000808@gmail.com> <14bdd73a2b0.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <54F613AC.9020902@gmail.com>,<14be1679548.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43577920@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <6E9196F1-E72A-4DE9-A8D4-38B7A159650E@gmail.com> A large +1 to Suresh for his straightforward and rational contribution to this discussion, and for his persistence in providing sensible responses to the views expressed on this list. George Sadowsky On Mar 4, 2015, at 6:12 AM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote: > +1 > > (meaning i am like willi) > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Tuesday 3 March 2015 21:50 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 1net.org discuss; willi uebelherr > Subject: Re: [governance] Net Neutrality in the next Internet > > I am afraid you are talking about something you don't know first hand and > don't understand to begin with. > > > On March 4, 2015 5:05:00 AM willi uebelherr wrote: > >> Am 02/03/2015 um 10:25 p.m. schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian: >>> Why do you need cdns? Well, if you want to access say operating system >>> updates, your email, sports scores etc at about the same speed in >>> Bolivia as people would be able to in whichever country the cdn was >>> hosted.. That's where cdns come in handy. >>> >>> Ixp? So isps in your area can exchange local traffic and keep it local, >>> so mutually ensuring fast access for each other's customers to sites >>> they host. Save on expensive international bandwidth too. >>> >>> As for why you need isps, I do hope you want to connect to the Internet. >>> You need an isp for that, you know. >>> >>> Next question please? >> >> Hello Suresh (from governance list), >> >> you should really read the emails. Then you understand my answer. We >> don't need this stupid constructions. We need the InterNet, "the >> interconnection of local networks". >> >> But this private networks, that are connected in IXP?s, with the private >> resource dealers, the ISP's, the private "Content Delivery Networks", a >> group of parasitic mafia, all this we don't need. >> >> We need the InterNet. >> >> many greetings, willi >> La Paz, Bolivia >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From dave at difference.com.au Tue Mar 10 21:40:49 2015 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:40:49 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality in the next Internet In-Reply-To: <21758.10718.479914.554364@world.std.com> References: <3CD00F5C-8452-42EB-87ED-6827D71B641B@adobe.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B0612C0BE@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <54ED3B48.4000106@di.unipi.it> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B0612FFFB@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <80D52C4BA93E6544BF778F54AC3DE01F4162AA9B23@CRPMBOXPRD09.polycom.com> <54EF58BB.6060801@firsthand.net> <54EF917E.6010706@imagicity.com> <004301d0526f$0db6ddc0$29249940$@ch> <54F06331.9050007@veni.com> <54F0F395.4050005@gih.com> <4AF53A50-9778-4AAE-B753-95FB73541FCE@frobbit.se> <54F1835A.8020601@gih.com> <00d701d0534c$85b3d700$911b8500$@ch> <54F1AEEE.4040900@meetinghouse.net> <2A61569D-68AA-425A-9BCA-88B4E9B9A717@consensus.pro> <54F1C2F6.8070600@meetinghouse.net> <59FF6F11-409A-4B6F-A9A1-7DCC2250D884@eastli nk.ca> <54F20BCC.6000500@meetinghouse.net> <9C99D865-E6EA-4DE7-80ED-9E805D8AB3BE@ieee.org> <1878813476.1120816.1425312151761.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <50FF5DFD-2DE4-4B46-A900-EEF891B78635@difference.com.au> <21758.10718.479914.554364@world.std.com> Message-ID: <39082FF6-9F0E-4D7A-8FF3-28221E3086F0@difference.com.au> Thanks Barry, informative. Though the addressing scheme is different and optimised for particular uses, in practical implementation it sounds a lot like you’d be effectively making ISPs and/or IXPs provide functions similar to a CDN node. I’m not even sure the separate naming scheme is necessary, the difference seems to be distinguishing between relatively static content and communication end points, which doesn’t need an entirely separate naming scheme. I’m not sure that we need a totally separate naming scheme to achieve this. The end result would, architecturally, seem to be not vastly different from an internet in which everything was going through a smart, interconnected, system of caching proxies (e.g. squid). David On 10 Mar 2015, at 7:16 am, Barry Shein wrote: > > First, the name is not "Van Johansen", it is "Van Jacobson", I know > Van, he is very smart and has made great contributions to the > development of networking technology. He deserves to have his name > right! > > The architecture being discussed is described here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking > > where they call it "Named Data Networking". > > The basic idea is straightforward enough: > > Currently you access information on the internet by identifying its > location, usually indirectly. > > Ultimately that location is identifed by an IP address such as > 192.74.137.5. > > *** IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN NOW SKIP FROM HERE **** > > We usually don't use those directly so instead we might start with a > domain name such as www.TheWorld.com which DNS translates to that IP > address. Or a URI such as http://www.TheWorld.com (possibly with > further qualification.) > > As a further indirection we might discover that is what we want via a > search engine or link in another document but nonetheless the goal is > that IP address no matter how many levels of indirection it takes to > arrive there. > > At a lower level, once identified (located), our packets are routed to > that IP address probably passing through one or more routers. > > That is how the internet works currently, in brief other than how > routing itself works. > > *** TO HERE **** > > IN THE PROPOSED scheme, Named Data Networking: > > A unit of information, say an online book or movie, is identified not > by its location but by its content in some way. > > *** YOU MIGHT BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL *** > > *** OR YOU CAN SKIP TO HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN *** > > So, for example, if I wanted to watch "Gone With The Wind" rather than > somehow (which is key!) discovering that I can watch it via the > Netflix service and locating netflix.com, etc I would simply say > something like "movie:gone with the wind" because that would be how it > is stored. > > At some low level its location still has to be identified but I think > the key concept is that I, as the consumer, have not identified that > location (e.g., netflix.com). I only identified what it is I want, > that movie (or book, etc.) > > So in the proposed scheme you remove (or supplement) the interface > everyone currently uses -- namely chasing down and identifying the > location of data -- which is done, ultimately, via IP address (and > routing to/from that address) and identify what you want only by its > content. > > That is, again, rather than netflix.com and so forth you would only > say something like "move:gone with the wind" and let the mechanics of > the system get that for you. > > You can read the wikipedia page for more detail. The devil is > certainly in the details of how this might be implemented and used. > > *** AS PROMISED: HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN *** > > It's not really like a CDN because CDNs are still answering requests > for data identified by location, they just are serving as a > short-circuit. > > ** YOU MIGHT REALLY BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL *** > > That is, rather than proceeding to that location the CDN's nodes > intervene and respond with the location's content. > > So if I want CNN's front page I say http://www.cnn.com and the CDN > intercepts that and says "here it is!" without my request having to > actually travel all the way to wherever CNN's servers lie. > > But in a CDN you're still identifying content in terms of its > location. > > As an extreme example if for some reason (e.g., hijacking!) CNN's > front page had only a copy of Gone With The Wind that's what the CDN > would hand you. > > The CDN has no inherent understanding that you requested that location > because you wanted to see news headlines, you never said that, it was > only implied because you happen to know www.cnn.com should contain > news headlines. > > The CDN only knows you requested whatever is at www.cnn.com, a > location, and handed you its contents presumably from a closer > (network-wise) location in the hope that is faster and reduces traffic > across the internet's backbone and the remote CNN servers. > > But you will get whatever is at that location you named, you don't > indicate what you want. > > *** EVERYTHING BELOW IS JUST QUOTED TEXT FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGES *** > *** AN ANNOYING CUSTOM ON THESE LISTS BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT TO *** > *** INCORPORATE PREVIOUS MESSAGE TEXT ONLY BY REFERENCE! *** > > From: David Cake >Is it just me, or does this > just sound like a very mild generalisation of t= >he idea of CDNs like > Akamai (similar services provided through Amazons AWS)= >? A concept > already in use by most large internet media providers? >> >> It does interact with net neutrality policy in some ways. A lot of the netw= >> ork neutrality debate can get into detailed discussion of when it is approp= >> riate for an ISP to charge for bandwidth, and if some bandwidth providers a= >> re heavily buffered this can make a difference (especially in situations wh= >> ere some hops, such as international links, are much more expensive to prov= >> ide). >> >> Cheers >> >> David >> >> On 3 Mar 2015, at 12:02 am, nathalie coupet wrot= >> e: >> >>> According to Van Johansen (Slow-start algorythm), the Internet should cha= >> nge from a ''conversational" architecture with connections between two node= >> s at a time, to a content-based architecture that would use the memory stor= >> ed in the infrastructure through leveraging the existing buffering occurrin= >> g at each hop, in order to send content to a very great number of addresses= >> at the same time. >>> Thus, Netflix would be able to send its content to great number of househ= >> olds not from a single address point, but from everywhere to everywhere. >>> =20 >>> Could someone explain in more detail exactly to what buffering he is refe= >> rring to, and how it would affect Net Neutrality? >>> =20 >>> Thanks, >>> =20 >>> Nathalie >>> =20 >>> From: Gary Kenward >>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>> Cc: internetpolicy >>> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 10:19 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be defined neutrally >>> =20 >>> Having worked with those telcos on Internet service models I can assure y= >> ou that their goal is to maximize their return on investment. And their pri= >> mary objective is to move up the food chain and become application service = >> and content providers (e.g. Crave.tv). >>> =20 >>> To be clear, for me working with the telecom industry was not a generally= >> satisfying experience. I still cannot get over the fact that we can delive= >> r Mordecai on-demand to a large number of house-holds, not to mention pictu= >> res of cats, food,...while our first responders have to deal with 20+ year = >> old communications technology. >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose. >>> =20 >>> The information contained in this document is private and confidential. T= >> his document is not to >>> be copied, printed or re-distributed without the explicit permission of t= >> he author. >>> =20 >>> On Mar 1, 2015, at 05:34, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> =20 >>>> The other thing that strikes me from the later part of this thread about= >> business models is this: >>>> =20 >>>> To what extent would the large telcos who don't like the FCC's NN decisi= >> on change their view if they weren't for-profit companies? >>>> =20 >>>> You would have to imagine that at least some of the very strong oppositi= >> on from the Verizons and AT&Ts are because they want to maximise return, an= >> d charging services for priority is another way to maximise return. >>>> =20 >>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Miles Fidelman wr= >> ote: >>>> =20 >>>>> At least in the states, there are lots of examples of very well run mun= >> icipal electric utilities (about 18% cheaper on average, too), and that's w= >> ho's branching into telecom - they need the data nets for SCADA and meterin= >> g and such, and once you start putting people on poles to run wires.... Abo= >> ut the only places you can get gigE FTTH in the states, are from a small nu= >> mber of munis. Munis are also a very far cry from utilities run by a nation= >> al government. >>>>> =20 >>>>> The problem with telecom, as with most utilities, comes down to right-o= >> f-ways -- there's a real first-mover advantage, after you've got pole space= >> and buildout, it's very hard for competition to move in. >>>>> =20 >>>>> Gary W Kenward wrote: >>>>>> I agree that monopolies are bad, for all market sectors. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> However, I still remember how bad the state run telephone services wer= >> e in Canada and Europe, and I haven=92t seen anything that would suggest to= >> day=92s governments would do any better in providing packet carrier service= >> s, particularly at the municipal level. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> The right approach is to begin with a revitalization of fair competiti= >> on laws. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> G >>>>>> */ >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> /* >>>>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. >>>>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PE= >> RMISSION OF ADROIT TECHNOLOGIC. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> On 2015.02.28, at 09:30, Miles Fidelman > ailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote: >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> It's called municipal broadband. >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> Seriously - private, monoploy (or duopoly) utilities is just a bad mo= >> del. >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> Miles Fidelman >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>>>>>>> It seems to me there's a good argument for cooperative and not-for-p= >> rofit models for ISPs. >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 13:54, Veni Markovski > @veni.com> > wrote: >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> By the way , when my company was investing in development and build= >> ing our own network in Bulgaria, the price of fiber and cat-5 cables was ve= >> ry high. Yet we did it, and provided affordable internet for all. But we di= >> dn't have shareholders to ask us to cut expenses and increase profits... >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, ac5jw . > lto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> This reminds me of the earlier times when we had that issue of >>>>>>>>> who paid for telephone calls. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> The conflict was that people who received telephone calls on >>>>>>>>> their mobile devices would get billed and charged for minutes and >>>>>>>>> for money when they received calls that they were unable to give >>>>>>>>> informed consent to in advance. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> The discussion of late on paying for services seems to follow >>>>>>>>> these lines. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> I am sure that the taxpayers are funding for some basic >>>>>>>>> telecommunications services to include Internet and that the >>>>>>>>> funding goes directly to telecommunications providers to maintain >>>>>>>>> a common system. At a minimum, all American taxpayers already >>>>>>>>> funding for the federal users of the Internet. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> I do not see having users on the Internet as a problem, because >>>>>>>>> the Internet serves them. I do have a problem with >>>>>>>>> double-dipping, where the man in the middle (providing the >>>>>>>>> communications) chooses to charge both entities higher and higher >>>>>>>>> rates while selling access to a common system of communication. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> I am concerned that at some point, the costs of provisioning and >>>>>>>>> building the system are amortized away and the resulting high >>>>>>>>> charges would just line the pockets of investors, service >>>>>>>>> providers, and speculators without going to improve the >>>>>>>>> infrastructure for everyone, to include new users coming online. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> I believe that net neutrality should consider the issue of >>>>>>>>> infrastructure delay and retardation because it ultimately >>>>>>>>> disserves the purpose of net neutrality. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> If the infrastructure is indeed improved upon, meaning more >>>>>>>>> bandwidth comes available and more users can access it, then the >>>>>>>>> service providers will continue to receive some taxpayer funding >>>>>>>>> and even a larger customer base for newly established private >>>>>>>>> accounts on the improved infrastructure. This might even be >>>>>>>>> considered a win-win opportunity for all to benefit. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Amateur Earth Station AC5JW >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Miles >>>>>>>>> Fidelman> .net>>wrote: >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Lack of competition, action by the incumbents to block new >>>>>>>>> competition, and action by the incumbents to favor their own >>>>>>>>> content services. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Miles Fidelman >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Richard Hill wrote: >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Indeed, as I understand it, the FCC has intervened in the >>>>>>>>> US because of the lack of competition in that country. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> *From:*InternetPolicy >>>>>>>>> [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Veni Markovski >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:41 >>>>>>>>> *To:* Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m >>>>>>>>> *Cc:*internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org > @elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be >>>>>>>>> defined neutrally >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> +1, as an ISP, we always wanted to build and offer more >>>>>>>>> bandwidth - not last reason was because our competitors >>>>>>>>> were doing the same. In the USA there's practically no >>>>>>>>> real competition - you choose between the cable company >>>>>>>>> (formerly tv), and the phone company (usually one). When >>>>>>>>> I moved there, I wanted to continue with my business, but >>>>>>>>> turned out regulations are made in such a way that they >>>>>>>>> don't allow competition. As a matter of fact, this past >>>>>>>>> week I saw a message that the government would allow the >>>>>>>>> creation of municipal networks, and the telcos protest as >>>>>>>>> this will be unfair competition... >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m >>>>>>>>> > .se>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>> On 28 feb 2015, at 09:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>> Is this really what happens? Is the ball solely in the >>>>>>>>> ISP court? I'd >>>>>>>>>> tend to think the responsibility is shared these days. >>>>>>>>> The explosion of >>>>>>>>>> video services has shown an incredible growth in >>>>>>>>> traffic which, if I was >>>>>>>>>> an ISP, I'd find very difficult to follow. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Why? A user can not use more than what the ISP connect >>>>>>>>> them with. If you get 1Mbps from your ISP you can not use >>>>>>>>> more than 1Mbps, right? >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>>> Look at Netflix for example - >>>>>>>>>> accounting for 35% of all US Internet traffic during >>>>>>>>> peak periods? >>>>>>>>>> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/11/21/netflix-now-accounts-35-over= >> all-us-internet-traffic/ >>>>>>>>>> Does it pay fairly for all of this traffic? >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Sure, for an ISP an IP packet is an IP packet. Customers >>>>>>>>> want to use more of them so the ISP can sell more of them. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Once again, the issue you point at is that users get >>>>>>>>> 100Mbps (for example) and earlier used 1Mbps but now uses >>>>>>>>> 10Mbps. This implies the traffic in the network have >>>>>>>>> increased with a multiplier of 10 but the ISP do not get >>>>>>>>> more money. Simply because what the user uses is >>>>>>>>> unexpected but still "within" the product that the ISP >>>>>>>>> actually have sold. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Note: I am not blaming the ISP for doing the wrong thing. >>>>>>>>> I am just explaining what I see the issue is. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> If an ISP has sold "up to 100Mbps" and users earlier did >>>>>>>>> use 1Mbps, but now 10Mbps, why would the ISP get money >>>>>>>>> from Netflix because the 9Mbps unexpected traffic is to >>>>>>>>> Netflix? Netflix already pays for the 9Mbps to their data >>>>>>>>> centers. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> Patrik >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Veni >>>>>>>>> http://veni.com >>>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski >>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above >>>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of >>>>>>>>> any organizations, associated >>>>>>>>> with or related to him in >>>>>>>>> any given way. >>>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =3D=3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are >>>>>>>>> caused by the touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the >>>>>>>>> reason for using short words and phrases. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account >>>>>>>>> menu. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Veni >>>>>>>>> http://veni.com >>>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski >>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above >>>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of >>>>>>>>> any organizations, associated >>>>>>>>> with or related to him in >>>>>>>>> any given way. >>>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =3D=3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by t= >> he touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the reason for using short words and = >> phrases. >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>> -- >>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>>>> =20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>> =20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>> =20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>> =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 > -------------- 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 Tue Mar 10 22:53:38 2015 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:53:38 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43579569@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> References: <4158150E-D824-4163-84C0-28223F01B04C@eff.org> <93F7081A-114A-4D0F-B8B9-D8916BA681EE@eff.org> <0d0601d05697$73dbcee0$5b936ca0$@gmail.com> <54F73530.7020509@itforchange.net> <7C5E2996-5DC7-4908-A22C-D725F15CFD76@difference.com.au> <54F82015.4020805@itforchange.net> <38AF5F8B-4C24-472C-B380-07812571E99C@difference.com.au> <20150309115438.5dc56239@quill> <20150309154039.3f510466@quill> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642C0C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9fa0d54d3e834031a879e76ee7030576@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>, <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43579569@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <3FE56436-8BF3-4723-AD84-7210A1173F28@difference.com.au> On 10 Mar 2015, at 3:44 pm, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote: > David, > > I was at a conference recently on "Cultures of Accountability: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Current and Future Accountability Mechanisms". If anyone wants to dig into the cultural discourse I am sure Brendan Van Alsenoy and Fanny Coudert would be happy to help. That sounds fascinating. > > What I brought with me from that conference was that "democratic accountability" was referred to as a kind of implicit last resort when many of the speakers gave witness of how terribly bad accountability mechanisms worked in their disciplines of study respectively. Absolutely. Though they are not the only method of last resort (in many Western cultures the highest courts are implicitly a method of last resort when democratic mechanisms such as parliaments fail). > > I think that the issues here are far more complex than navigating among definitions of "democracy", "transparency" or "openness". I think Milton is right in the sense that most thinking in this field is a confused mosh of perceptions. Absolutely. The point is that simply elevating a single principle to primacy, especially without a detailed examination of what that principle would mean in practice, is an oversimplification of what we need. I still think that ‘open and transparent’ are useful principles to add, and might serve to identify desired goals, better than multi-stakeher in the current context. I’d like to also make the point that the discussions of accountability in the ICANN context have already gone to quite a significant level of examination of accountability measures and their application and justification, though they are far too complex for me to adequately explain, or indeed fully follow personally. The relatively simple and high level discussions at the level of principle on this list should not be taken to be representative of the practical discussion in progress elsewhere. David > > Still, every one of us knows exactly what Chaplin was talking about. > > Best regards. > > //Erik > > ________________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] > Sent: Tuesday 10 March 2015 08:11 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Norbert Bollow; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of "Connecting the Dots Conference" > > Milton summarises the problems with the use of the term democracy without further explanation far better than I did. > > +1 > > On 10 Mar 2015, at 3:34 am, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Wolfgang >> >> Throwing the word "democratic" alongside "multitakeholder" doesn't solve the problem. It is more fundamental. >> >> I feel like I've had this conversation about democracy with Parminder a dozen times, if not more. >> As I have pointed out repeatedly, and Jeanette did here also, the very meaning of "democracy," much less its desirability, is completely unclear in a globalized environment. >> >> Current conceptions of democracy are based on citizenship in a defined and limited territory, and institutions associated with territorial states that verify citizenship, assign specific rights to them, define an electoral machinery for aggregating the preferences of citizen population, and also LIMIT the powers and scope of democratic decision making in order to protect individual rights, and to maintain checks and balances on the various branches of government. >> >> None of this has any relevance to the global governance of the internet. There is no global state, no global citizenship, no global constitution dividing and limiting the powers that might be exercised by a global state, etc. There is no machinery for aggregating and effectuating the preferences of a global population. The territorial division of populations into distinct units, even if democratically governed, creates its own pathologies: one need only look at the increasing popularity of European parties that favor restrictions on immigration as one of hundreds of possible examples. >> >> Hence, the appropriation of the term "democratic" by JNC can mean any of these things: >> >> A) It is a purely rhetorical ploy that trades on the fact that "democracy" is like "motherhood" and "God" and no one can claim to be against it. Decmoratic = good, and whatever is politically good is democratic. This of course ignores all the pathologies of pure democracy >> >> B) It is a cover word for the reassertion of the authority of existing states over internet governance, which means not only "democracy" in the classical 20th century nation-state sense but also the bastardized UN usage which means one country, one vote, even if 2/3 of the nations voting are not internally democratic >> >> C) It represents a kind of naïve belief that the democratic institutions of the nation-state can be translated easily into a globalized framework. But if so, why do we hear so little about what form these new institutions will take, how they will be designed, how they will avoid abuses of power? When MG or NB talk about "democratic" regulation of Internet businesses (and of the rest of us, inevitably), what regulators are they talking about and what law do they operate under and to which courts are they accountable? >> >> I suspect that their thinking is a confused mosh of all three of these, but the immediate effect of their 'democratic' advocacy is basically represented by B. >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >>> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 11:05 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at >>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: AW: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony >>> of "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I propose that all discussant agree now - after this bizarre wortdsmithing >>> discussion - on Principle 9.1 of the Sao Paulo Declaration which states: >>> >>> 9.INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROCESS PRINCIPLES: 9.1 Multistakeholder: >>> Internet governance should be built on democratic, multistakeholder >>> processes, ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all >>> stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, civil society, the >>> technical community, the academic community and users. The respective >>> roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible >>> manner with reference to the issue under discussion. >>> >>> >>> It would be good if those CS Groups who had some reservations in Sao Paulo >>> rejoin now the NetMundial Initiative and contribute to the implementation >>> of 9.1. >>> >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Norbert Bollow >>> Gesendet: Mo 09.03.2015 15:40 >>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Benedek, Wolfgang >>> (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) >>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Betreff: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Remarks at UNESCO Closing Ceremony of >>> "Connecting the Dots Conference" >>> >>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:12:42 +0100 >>> "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> on the issue of democracy in international instruments like the UDHR >>>> and the ICCPR, it should be noted that democracy is neither used in >>>> Article 21 of the Universal Declaration nor in Article 25 of the >>>> ICCPR, which speak of participation in government of one's country, >>>> periodic elections etc >>> >>> Yes, indeed. Where the principle of democracy is referred to in relation to >>> governments, in those texts the word "democracy" is not used, but instead a >>> very very central aspect of makes a society and its government democratic is >>> spelled out explicitly. >>> >>>> The limitation clause in Article 29 UDHR states that rights can be >>>> restricted for the sake of the general welfare in a democratic >>>> society. As the UDHR is not a binding convention there is no >>>> authoritative interpretation of this phrase by an international human >>>> rights body to my knowledge. >>> >>> Actually the phrase, with some variations (in which the word "democratic" >>> occurs in a similar construction, and I would say, certainly with the same >>> meaning) is also in binding human rights instruments. In particular, here are >>> some references: ICCPR, Art. 14, Art. 21, Art. 22. ICESCR, Art. 4. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>>> However, in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, >>>> the European Court of Human Rights regularly requires a "pressing >>>> social need" for restrictions which are possible based on the similar >>>> limitation clause "necessary in a democratic society". More and >>>> examples in my book with Matthias Kettemann on Freedom of Expression >>>> and the Internet, Council of Europe 2014. >>>> >>>> Wolfgang Benedek >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 09.03.15 11:54 schrieb "Norbert Bollow" unter : >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 16:16:17 +0800 >>>>> David Cake wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jeremy claims that if the inclusion of the term in descriptions of >>>>>> mutti-stakeholder bodies means anything concrete, it means >>>>>> retaining a special role for government (in, presumably, all >>>>>> situations, not just those areas like law enforcement that >>>>>> governments have a special role intrinsically by law). JNC denies >>>>>> that interpretation - so please, what IS your interpretation of >>>>>> what the term democratic in the context you discuss would mean. >>>>> >>>>> I hereby assure you that JNC has every intention of publishing a >>>>> position paper which will address this in some depth. I will post >>>>> about this when it is available. >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime, you and/or others might be interested in reflecting >>>>> on what is the precise meaning of the word "democratic" in the >>>>> context of the very interesting way in which this word is used in >>>>> Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> co-convenor, Just Net Coalition (JNC) http://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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Mar 11 08:28:11 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:28:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Wipo-crossroads] U.S. Statement at the Human Rights Council on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Thiru Balasubramaniam* Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 Subject: [Wipo-crossroads] U.S. Statement at the Human Rights Council on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities To: wipo-crossroads at lists.keionline.org https://geneva.usmission.gov/2015/03/11/u-s-statement-at-the-human-rights-council-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/ U.S. Statement at the Human Rights Council on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities *Annual Interactive Dialogue on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities* *“Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on living independently and being included in the community” * *28**th** Session of the UN Human Rights Council* *Sofija Korac* *March 10, 2015* *Geneva* Thank you, Mr. President. The United States warmly welcomes today’s discussion on the rights of persons with disabilities to live independently. This discussion is particularly timely for us as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in July. This landmark legislation ensures that persons with disabilities have the same rights under our laws that others enjoy. We point to the ADA when we assist other countries in improving their domestic legislation and implementing their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The United States has a strong commitment to enabling persons with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community. This commitment arose from the groundbreaking advocacy of persons with disabilities and their organizations. We know that successfully supporting people with disabilities to remain in, and return to, the community includes the need for accessible housing options and accessible transportation. It includes having access to quality services and supports as needed. It means access to education and competitive, integrated employment opportunities on an equal basis with others. It also requires changing attitudes, and overcoming stigma and fear of the unknown. In the landmark 1999 *Olmstead v. L.C* decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the ADA prohibits unnecessary segregation and protects the right of persons with disabilities to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate for them. The *Olmstead* ruling was a critical step for our nation because it acknowledged that the choice to live independently is fundamental for Americans with disabilities. As such, President Obama launched the Year of Community Living on the tenth anniversary of the *Olmstead* decision. By establishing Community Living as a priority throughout the United States government, the President signaled the importance of living independently and being included in the community. Federal and state agencies are working together to achieve the goals of*Olmstead*. Our Departments of Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development collaborate to provide funding and technical assistance to states so that they can develop and expand the full array of community services. These services range from housing and health care to transportation and employment. The Department of Health and Human Services has its own organization focused on Community Living. This part of that agency works to maximize the independence, well-being, and health of people with disabilities across the lifespan. It also works to support the families and caregivers of persons with disabilities. Our Department of Justice’s enforcement efforts have helped states comply with *Olmstead*’s community integration mandate. These enforcement efforts also have helped ensure that states serve people with disabilities in the way most conducive to independence and full participation in community life. We are proud of the progress we have made, and we look forward to celebrating our 25th year of the ADA. Thank you. -- -- *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 lea at gp-digital.org Wed Mar 11 08:57:41 2015 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:57:41 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [Tomorrow, 14:00 GMT] Invitation to GCCS2015 Webinar #2 - The Technology Behind the Policy Debate Message-ID: Dear friends, *(with apologies for cross-posting)* As already mentioned on this list, as part of the effort to facilitate effective civil society engagement in The Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS2015), a tailor-made training program for civil society is being delivered through a series of seven webinars in the run up to the Conference. On behalf of the GCCS2015 Advisory Board , we would like to invite you to join us *tomorrow (12th March) at 14:00 GMT*, for the *second webinar* in this series - "The Technology Behind the Policy Debate" - presented by Niels ten Oever, Head of Digital at Article19. To join this webinar,* please register at this **link* after which you will receive details on how to join the session. *Please feel free to share this link with your networks.* For questions or assistance, please contact us at aditi at gp-digital.org Best wishes, Lea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marta.skotnicka at nowoczesnapolska.org.pl Wed Mar 11 10:49:52 2015 From: marta.skotnicka at nowoczesnapolska.org.pl (Marta Skotnicka) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:49:52 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [cooperation proposal] Polish NGO looking for Hungarian and Ukrainian Partners for a Strategic Visegrad Grant Message-ID: <55005610.4000609@nowoczesnapolska.org.pl> Dear All, It's great to join the list. The Modern Poland Foundation, a non-governmental organisation which I represent, is looking for a Ukrainian and Hungarian Partner for a Strategic Visegrad Grant (deadline: April 15, 2015; the results will be known by the end of June) within the following priority: * **V4 + Ukraine—Conference/Forum + Expert Consultations: Organization of a con­fer­ence of think tanks/NGOs from the V4 coun­tries and Ukraine with the par­tic­i­pa­tion of V4 and Ukrainian gov­ern­ment offi­cials (a series of expert con­sul­ta­tions on spe­cific issues related to the reform agenda could be a part of the project)* The project would involve organising two editions of the International CopyCamp conference (please see materials from the three past editions at: http://copycamp.pl/en/) in the subject of copyright and its social impacts, particularly in the field of cultural goods' circulation in the digital environment. We are looking for individuals/representatives of institutions (non-governmental and non-profit orga­ni­za­tions, munic­i­pal­i­ties and local gov­ern­ments, pub­lic schools and uni­ver­si­ties, research and sci­en­tific bodies and pub­lic insti­tu­tions in gen­eral with the excep­tion of orga­ni­za­tions directly funded from state budgets) who/which might be interested in taking part in the project as a Partner in the perspective of the two upcoming CopyCamp conferences (2015 and 2016). Generally speaking, the cooperation would include: - co-organization of the V4+Ukraine track at the conference (exact activities to be specified) - experts' involvement: recommendations of speakers and/or experts for consultations/workshops - participation in the conference/forum (roles to be specified) - promotional activities: publishing at least two press releases per year on the Partner's website, sending information on the project to blogs/websites related with the subject, spreading the word among local communities about the conference open call and the event itself, helping create a community interested in the project (exact activities to be specified) In case of further questions, I'm at your disposal. Thank you in advance for any recommendations. Kind regards, Marta Skotnicka Modern Poland Foundation -- Marta Skotnicka Koordynatorka projektów / Project coordinator www.nowoczesnapolska.org.pl Fundacja Nowoczesna Polska jest Organizacją Pożytku Publicznego. Możesz przekazać 1% podatku na rozwój projektów Fundacji podając w formularzu PIT nr KRS: 0000070056 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Wed Mar 11 13:46:55 2015 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:46:55 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [cooperation proposal] Polish NGO looking for Hungarian and Ukrainian Partners for a Strategic Visegrad Grant In-Reply-To: <55005610.4000609@nowoczesnapolska.org.pl> References: <55005610.4000609@nowoczesnapolska.org.pl> Message-ID: Dear Marta, I am from Ukraine, I represent iNGO European Media Platform, we are extremely interested in your proposition. Best regards, Oksana Prykhodko, director of iNGO European Media Platform On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Marta Skotnicka < marta.skotnicka at nowoczesnapolska.org.pl> wrote: > Dear All, > > It's great to join the list. > > The Modern Poland Foundation, a non-governmental organisation which I represent, is looking for a Ukrainian and Hungarian Partner for a Strategic Visegrad Grant (deadline: April 15, 2015; the results will be known by the end of June) within the following priority:*V4 + Ukraine—Conference/Forum + Expert Consultations: Organization of a con­fer­ence of think tanks/NGOs from the V4 coun­tries and Ukraine with the par­tic­i­pa­tion of V4 and Ukrainian gov­ern­ment offi­cials (a series of expert con­sul­ta­tions on spe­cific issues related to the reform agenda could be a part of the project)* > > The project would involve organising two editions of the International CopyCamp conference (please see materials from the three past editions at: http://copycamp.pl/en/) in the subject of copyright and its social impacts, particularly in the field of cultural goods' circulation in the digital environment. > > We are looking for individuals/representatives of institutions (non-governmental and non-profit orga­ni­za­tions, munic­i­pal­i­ties and local gov­ern­ments, pub­lic schools and uni­ver­si­ties, research and sci­en­tific bodies and pub­lic insti­tu­tions in gen­eral with the excep­tion of orga­ni­za­tions directly funded from state budgets) who/which might be interested in taking part in the project as a Partner in the perspective of the two upcoming CopyCamp conferences (2015 and 2016). Generally speaking, the cooperation would include: > > - co-organization of the V4+Ukraine track at the conference (exact activities to be specified) > - experts' involvement: recommendations of speakers and/or experts for consultations/workshops > - participation in the conference/forum (roles to be specified) > - promotional activities: publishing at least two press releases per year on the Partner's website, sending information on the project to blogs/websites related with the subject, spreading the word among local communities about the conference open call and the event itself, helping create a community interested in the project (exact activities to be specified) > > In case of further questions, I'm at your disposal. > Thank you in advance for any recommendations. > > Kind regards, > Marta Skotnicka > Modern Poland Foundation > > -- > Marta Skotnicka > Koordynatorka projektów / Project coordinatorwww.nowoczesnapolska.org.pl > > Fundacja Nowoczesna Polska jest Organizacją Pożytku Publicznego. > Możesz przekazać 1% podatku na rozwój projektów Fundacji > podając w formularzu PIT nr KRS: 0000070056 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 Thu Mar 12 11:37:16 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:37:16 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [] IGFSA Website Payment Portal Now Functional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5501B2AC.9020400@acm.org> Hi, Finally this portal is open. Dealing with banking rules was a challenge. As the barometer on that page shows we are a long way from achieving our goals. So if you are interested in supporting the IGF and have some spare change, please join, please donate. avri -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Igfsa-executive-committee] IGFSA Website Payment Portal Now Functional Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:42:40 -0400 Dear All, The Online Payment Portal is now functional!!!! http://www.igfsa.org/ Please pass on to those in your circles who have yet to become a member or want to donate! Also a little reminder that those who are donating a larger sum, more than $500 USD, if you could please have them contact the secretariat at info at igfsa.org so I can provide wiring directions and an Invoice. Best Regards, Kyle --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Igfsa-executive-committee mailing list Igfsa-executive-committee at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/igfsa-executive-committee From jmalcolm at eff.org Thu Mar 12 12:53:19 2015 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:53:19 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Technical volunteer Message-ID: <5501C47F.4060608@eff.org> We have so many Internet experts on this list, that I'm wondering if there is someone with system administration experience who could volunteer a couple of hours of their time. The Best Bits server has been experiencing unusual load over the last few days, and I haven't had a chance to track down why. If so, please let me know off-list. Thanks. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Mar 12 14:56:02 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:56:02 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] US NN rules explained Message-ID: https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/what-happens-now-with-net-neutrality http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/today-is-fcc-net-neutrality-order-day-what-happens-now/ -- *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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Mar 12 20:59:53 2015 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:59:53 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] 400-page Open Internet order In-Reply-To: References: <3518D1F4-DB34-4C66-9596-0FF98DB5EED3@warpspeed.com>, Message-ID: Perhaps of interest Lee ________________________________ From: Dave Farber via ip Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:22 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] 400-page net neutrality order includes 80 pages of Republican dissents ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hendricks Dewayne > Date: Thursday, March 12, 2015 Subject: [Dewayne-Net] 400-page net neutrality order includes 80 pages of Republican dissents To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > 400-page net neutrality order includes 80 pages of Republican dissents Two weeks after vote, you can finally read the controversial rules. By Jon Brodkin Mar 12 2015 The Federal Communications Commission voted on February 26 to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service and enforce net neutrality rules, but the commission's entire ruling didn't become public until this morning. Now you can read the entire ruling, all 400 pages of it, including the dissents from Republican commissioners. That includes a 64-page dissent from Ajit Pai and 16 pages from Michael O'Reilly. We'll be reading it ourselves for potential followup articles. Republicans on the commission and in Congress had urged FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to make the rules public before the vote, but the commission adhered to past practice by not releasing them until the final touches were ready. Wheeler explained on the day of the vote that the majority was required to include the minority's dissents and "be responsive to those dissents" in order to make the ruling complete. The process took longer than the last time the FCC issued net neutrality rules in 2010; there was just a two-day gap in that case. Those rules were largely thrown out in court after a Verizon challenge, forcing the FCC to start over. There are still some more steps before broadband providers can start filing lawsuits. Opponents can get the court process rolling once the rules are published in the Federal Register. FCC expert Harold Feld, the senior VP of advocacy group Public Knowledge, notes that the FCC cannot control the publication date, but he thinks that will happen in seven to 10 days. He has an extensive breakdown of the process here. The rules do not actually go into effect until 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. There's one exception to that, as new network management disclosure requirements for Internet providers require an additional approval by the Office of Management and Budget to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. 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 lucabelli at hotmail.it Tue Mar 3 15:41:02 2015 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:41:02 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for Papers - Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality In-Reply-To: <20150303110141.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.22a31608f4.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net> References: <20150303110141.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.22a31608f4.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear all, (apologies for crossposting) Please find below (and in attachment) the Call for Papers for the annual Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality. The call may be directly downloaded here Submissions are due on 1st August 2015. Feel free to circulate this call. All the best, Luca Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality Call for Papers Network Neutrality: Emerging Challenges and Concrete Implementations Background: Over the past two years, the importance of the network neutrality debate has become a priority for both national and international policy makers. While the US has explicitly banned discriminatory traffic management practices, such as blocking, throttling and paid prioritisation, other countries have already implemented or are currently formulating network neutrality laws and regulations, and even proposing to incorporate net neutrality principles within an Internet Bill of Rights. At the same time, other governments are still considering whether and how to properly regulate Internet traffic management. Even where the rule of non-discrimination has been enshrined into law, the practical details of implementation still have to be worked out. Some unanswered questions still remain with regard to what actually constitutes discrimination, and how should network neutrality principles be implemented into practice. On the other hand, new commercial offers based on price discrimination, such as the “zero-rated” services are being experimented in various countries by an increasing number of Internet players, raising questions as regards their compatibility with the non-discriminatory principles of network neutrality. On the one hand, Internet access is increasingly supported by the proliferation of grassroots Community Networks, relying on wireless connectivity and mesh networking technologies to set up alternative and autonomous network infrastructures, designed by the community and for the community. The traffic management practices adopted by these alternative initiatives remain unclear and only a limited amount of research has been developed on the matter. The 2015 Report of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality aims at fostering a global reflection with regard to the relationship between the network-neutrality principle and the aforementioned emerging issues. Call: The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, established under the auspices of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum, invites researchers and practitioners to submit a position paper pertaining to Network Neutrality: Emerging Challenges and Concrete Implementations. After having explored the instrumental role of NN in guaranteeing the full enjoyment of fundamental rights and the existing regulatory approaches to NN in different countries, the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality seeks to trigger discussion around the emerging practices that might either support or endanger the effective application of Network Neutrality principles, considering the latest evolutions in Internet access. Suggested topics include analyses of, inter alia: · Costs and benefits of price-discrimination schemes, such as zero-rating practices · Traffic discrimination via unconventional broadband access (e.g. drones, balloons, etc.) · Network neutrality approaches within Community Networks · Net neutrality challenges linked the convergence of wireless and mobile networks · The value of network neutrality for the Internet of Things · Case studies of net-neutrality law enforcement and regulatory implementation Submission Guidelines: Research papers, including analytical and theoretical papers, position papers, or case studies will be considered for inclusion in the report, even if they have been previously published. The length of the submissions should be between 2500 and 5000 words. To facilitate the reviewing process, papers should not include author names or other information that would help identify the authors. All paper shall be in English language, and formatted according to the HWPiL style template. Submissions are due on 1st August, 2015. They should include the following elements: · Title · Short abstract (250 words) · Original contribution · Author’s name, affiliation and short bibliographical note (in the body of the email). Submissions should be sent to contact at networkneutrality.info Authors will be notified within approximately two weeks from the deadline as to the status of their contributions. All submitted papers will be subject to a rigorous double-blind peer review, whereby each paper will be reviewed by at least two reviewers. Everyone who submitted a paper will be asked to peer review another submission, which will be judged according to the novelty of the contribution, the theoretical soundness and the quality of presentation. Authors will be given the opportunity to improve their contributions based on peer comments. Selected papers will be published into the Dynamic Coalition Report, which will be published under Open Access conditions. All authors must ensure that their contribution can be licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses of their choice. Some of the authors will also be invited (at their own expenses) to present their work at the annual DC meeting to be held at the United Nation Internet Governance Forum, from 10 to 13 November 2015, in Joao Pessoa, Brazil. _______________________________________________ NNcoalition mailing list NNcoalition at mailman.edri.org http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DC NN CallforPapers 2015.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 156339 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001 URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Mar 13 16:19:24 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:19:24 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 Webinar Series Message-ID: Dear friends, *(with apologies for cross-posting)* As part of the effort to facilitate effective civil society engagement in The Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS2015), a tailor-made training program for civil society will be delivered through a series of seven webinars in the run up to the Conference. On behalf of the GCCS2015 Advisory Board , we would like to invite you to join us for the next two webinars in this series: - *Webinar #3: Monday 16th March at 15:00 GMT* "Roles and Responsibilities" - presented by Myriam Dunn Cavelty, lecturer for security studies and a senior researcher in the field of risk and resilience at the Center for Security Studies (CSS). To join this webinar,* please register at this **link* after which you will receive details on how to join the session. - *Webinar #4: Friday 20th March at 14:00 GMT* "International Peace and Security" - presented by Vladimir Radunović. coordinator of e-diplomacy and cybersecurity educational and training programmes of DiploFoundation. To join this webinar, *please register at this link ,* after which you will receive information on how to join the session. All webinars in the series will be delivered by experts in the field and will mirror the agenda of the main Conference, allowing participants to gain a wider understanding of the cybersecurity and human rights issues that will be addressed at the Conference. This webinar series has been organised by the GCCS Advisory Board, under the leadership of Tim Maurer and in partnership with the Government of the Netherlands. The webinars will each consist of a 30 minute presentation, followed by a 30 minute Q&A session where participants will be able to interact with the speaker. In this way, this training programme will attempt to maximise civil society engagement in GCCS2015, allowing for more robust and inclusive debate. Please feel free to share this link with your networks. For questions or assistance, please contact us at aditi at gp-digital.org Best wishes, -- -- *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 lea at gp-digital.org Mon Mar 16 08:30:13 2015 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:30:13 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Call for workshop proposals - translated Message-ID: Dear friends, Find below the call for workshops to this year's IGF and the tips for workshop proposers in seven additional languages. Please circulate to your networks. *Deadline - March 30th.* Best, Lea ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Susan Chalmers Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:35 AM Subject: [IGFmaglist] Please circulate: Call to Participate To: "Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org" Dear colleagues, Attached you will find translations of the Call to Participate in the IGF / 10 Tips for workshop proposers document in the following languages: - Arabic - Chinese - French - Hindi - Japanese - Russian - Spanish We are most grateful to our collagues Baher Esmat, Dr. Xiadong Lee, Nathalie Coupet, Virat Bhatia, Izumi Okutani, Marianne Sokolova, and Maria Victoria Romero Caballero for their time and efforts in translating this document. Could the Secretariat kindly confirm that it will post these documents, and circulate the call, to the regional and national IGF organisers? *Note* that the deadline for workshop proposals is the end of this month! Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call to Participate in the 2015 Internet Governance Forum Arabic.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2482774 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call to Participate in the 2015 Internet Governance Forum Chinese.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 160282 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call to Participate in the 2015 Internet Governance Forum French.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 115101 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call to Participate in the 2015 Internet Governance Forum Japanese.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 118457 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call to Participate in the 2015 Internet Governance Forum Russian.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 141669 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call to Participate in the 2015 Internet Governance Forum Spanish.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 108700 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call to Participate in IGF 2015 Hindi.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 95253 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Mar 16 21:32:51 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:32:51 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] GCIG Paper No. 7 now online: On the Nature of the Internet by Leslie Daigle Message-ID: This morning, the GCIG secretariat issued working paper No. 7 by GCIG Research Adviser Leslie Daigle. *On the Nature of the Internet* can be downloaded and read by visiting: https://ourinternet.org/#publications. -- -- *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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Mon Mar 16 22:33:29 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:33:29 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] GCIG Paper No. 7 now online: On the Nature of the Internet by Leslie Daigle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a very good treatment of the characteristics that describe the Internet. The real Internet gives everyone general purpose interoperability. One of the most important concerns with the Information Society project is its impact on the best features of the Internet and its recognition of how the Internet contributes to its goals. On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > > > This morning, the GCIG secretariat issued working paper No. 7 by GCIG > Research Adviser Leslie Daigle. > > > > On the Nature of the Internet can be downloaded and read by visiting: > https://ourinternet.org/#publications. > > > > -- > > -- > 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 From deborah at apc.org Tue Mar 17 07:42:21 2015 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 07:42:21 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Oral statement +HRC28 briefing note- UN Human Rights Council re: SR on the right to privacy In-Reply-To: <54F4F2D4.5020606@apc.org> References: <54F4F2D4.5020606@apc.org> Message-ID: <5508131D.9090500@apc.org> Dear all, The joint oral statement on the special rapporteur on the right to privacy was delivered at the HRC on Friday, with the support of over 90 organisations. We've posted the statement as delivered here: https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/more-90-ngos-call-establish-un-special-rapporteur The resolution to create a new special rapporteur on the right to privacy is currently being negotiated and a draft of the resolution should be available online soon. Also, I wanted to belatedly share with you a briefing document on internet-related human rights issues being covered at the current HRC session developed by APC and Access. https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefing-note-human-rights-council-28th-session This session of the HRC includes discussion of the right to privacy, surveillance when countering terrorism, violence against children online, and copyright policy and the right to science and culture. All the best, Deborah On 3/2/15 6:31 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > As you might be aware, there is an ongoing effort to establish a UN > Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy. The Human Rights Council > is expected to consider this at its current session, which began today > in Geneva. > > If established, the rapporteur will provide much-needed leadership and > guidance on developing an understanding of the scope and content on > the right to privacy, as well as strengthening the monitoring of > states and companies' compliance with their responsibility to respect > and protect the right to privacy in their laws, policies and practices. > > We have been working with Privacy International and others to develop > an oral statement (attached), which will be delivered during the > session of the Council. We are inviting NGOs to join this statement in > order to send a strong signal of support for the creation of a Special > Rapporteur on the right to privacy. > > Given the previous interest on Best Bits in privacy and surveillance > issues, I wanted to share this statement here to give you the > opportunity to sign on. If your organisation is interested to join > it, please email Tomaso Falchetta (at tomasof at privacyinternational.org > ) and Shawna Finnegan > (shawna at apc.org) by *no later than Wednesday, 11 March*. > > *Please note that this statement is not for publication before 13 March. * > > All the best, > Deborah > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as 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 Mar 18 10:09:23 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:09:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] 2014-2015 Map of key WSIS related events Message-ID: See picture attached, I received in a CITEL meeting on WSIS + 10 here in DC. *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: FullSizeRender.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1557341 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Mar 18 12:46:55 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:46:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ITU launches new online platform and storytelling campaign to mark 150th anniversary - Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: ITU Press Office [mailto:pressoffice at itu.int ] Subject: ITU launches new online platform and storytelling campaign to mark 150th anniversary ORIGINAL: English ITU launches new online platform and storytelling campaign to mark 150th anniversary - http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=www.itu150.org brings together #ITU150 global community Geneva, 3 March 2015 - A new website has been launched to highlight ITU's achievements and on